(U) HADES_Evaluation_Executive Summary_20260529.pdf

UNCLASSIFIED

i

UNCLASSIFIED

HYBRID ARCHITECTURE AND DEVELOPMENT FOR

EXPERIMENTAL SYSTEMS (HADES) SERVICES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | EVALUATION FACTORS

SUBJECT TO CHANGE

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

29 MAY 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.

Innovation and Prototyping Division Ground

SSC/SYD89/SDG

Kirtland AFB, NM

5/29/2026

HYBRID ARCHITECTURE AND DEVELOPMENT FOR

EXPERIMENTAL SYSTEMS (HADES) SERVICES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | EVALUATION FACTORS

SUBJECT TO CHANGE

1. (U) TECHNICAL, PAST PERFORMANCE, AND COST/PRICE EVALUATION OVERVIEW.

1.1.1 (U) The Evaluation Framework – Big Picture The Government will evaluate proposals using three factors:

• Factor 1 – Technical (Most Important)

• Factor 2 – Past Performance (Second Most Important)

• Factor 3 – Cost/Price (Least Important)

1.1.2 (U) Relative importance:

Technical is more important than Past Performance. Technical and Past Performance combined are significantly more important than Cost/Price. As Technical and Past Performance become more equal among proposals, Cost/Price becomes more important in the best value decision.

1.1.3 (U) Best Value Tradeoff:

The Government may select a higher priced proposal with superior technical approaches and higher Past Performance confidence. The Government will not make award based on lowest price alone if non-cost factors are meaningfully different.

2. (U) FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL.

2.1.1 (U) Technical Subfactors (Structure) Your Technical Volume (Volume II) will be evaluated under five subfactors:

2.1.1.1 (U) Subfactor 1.1 – Program Management: Administrative Requirements

• Type: – Pass/Fail

• Content:

o Key Personnel (PM, DPM, Chief Engineer, Cybersecurity Lead) o Personnel Security Requirements o Transition Plan o Small Business Participation

• Role:

o All four criteria must ultimately receive PASS ratings for the proposal to be eligible for award.

o A FAIL renders the proposal unawardable as submitted under the Technical factor unless corrected through discussions and Final Proposal Revisions (if discussions are held).

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

• Type: Adjectival (Technical Capability & Technical Risk)

• What is evaluated:

o Adequacy of total labor hours and skill mix.

o Distribution of staffing across the three initial Task Orders (Ground Control, JAGUAR, Ground

Support).

o Time-phasing of staffing (ramp-up, steady state, ramp-down).

o Consistency and traceability between Technical and Cost/Price Volumes.

o Adequacy of cleared personnel for required classification levels.

2.1.1.3 (U) Subfactor 1.3 – Program Management: Emerging Requirements Response

• Type: Adjectival (Technical Capability & Technical Risk)

• Designation: MOST SIGNIFICANT Program Management subfactor and primary discriminator within

Technical.

• What is evaluated:

o Your response to the Emerging Requirements scenario (Mission X MUS migration).

o Ability to execute a new Task Order while maintaining baseline performance on all ongoing Task

Orders.

o Staffing strategy for the new requirement (staff-up, peak, staff-down).

o Baseline performance protection measures.

o Execution strategy and risk management for the 12-month migration timeline.

o Flexibility and adaptability to incomplete information and evolving requirements.

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

• Type: Adjectival (Technical Capability & Technical Risk)

• What is evaluated:

o Coverage of the full SE lifecycle (concept, requirements, design, development, integration, test, deployment, operations, sustainment).

o Ability to support multiple simultaneous Task Orders with varying scope and complexity.

o Tailoring to HADES-specific challenges (multi-mission operations, multiple classification levels, mission partner integration).

o Use of appropriate SE methods, tools, and standards, including requirements management and traceability.

2.1.1.5 (U) Subfactor 1.5 – Systems Engineering: Configuration Management

• Type: Pass/Fail

• What is evaluated:

o CM processes, tools, and procedures (identification, change control, status accounting, audits).

o Integration of CM into the SE lifecycle and operations.

o Ability to maintain configuration control across multiple missions, Task Orders, and classification levels without cross-mission conflicts.

o CM roles, responsibilities, and interfaces with Government and mission partner CM.

• Role:

o A FAIL renders the proposal unawardable as submitted under the Technical factor unless corrected through discussions/FPR.

2.1.2 (U) Relative Importance Within Technical

2.1.2.1 (U) Program Management vs. Systems Engineering Program Management subfactors (1.1–1.3), considered together, are more important than Systems Engineering subfactors (1.4–1.5).

2.1.2.2 (U) Pass/Fail vs. Adjectival Subfactors Subfactor 1.1 (Administrative Requirements) and Subfactor 1.5 (Configuration Management) are Pass/Fail.

They both must ultimately be considered technically acceptable for award eligibility.

Subfactors 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 are Adjectival and will be evaluated for strengths, weaknesses, and risk.

2.1.2.3 (U) Among Adjectival Subfactors

• Subfactor 1.3 – Emerging Requirements Response is the most important and the primary discriminator under the Technical factor.

• Subfactor 1.2 – Staffing/Labor Profile and Subfactor 1.4 – SE Approach and Methodology are secondary discriminators and are approximately equal in importance.

3. (U) FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE.

3.1.1 (U) Overview Purpose: To assess the Government’s confidence that you will successfully perform HADES based on your demonstrated performance on recent and relevant contracts.

3.1.2 (U) What the Government will assess:

3.1.2.1 (U) Recency Contracts that are ongoing or completed within five (5) years of the RFP release date.

3.1.2.2 (U) Relevancy:

Similarity in scope, magnitude, and complexity to HADES, including:

• Program Management (workforce management, stakeholder coordination, transition, sustainment).

• Systems Engineering (requirements analysis, design, integration, testing, transition to operations).

• Cost and schedule performance.

3.1.2.3 (U) Quality How well you performed (technical results, cost control, schedule adherence, problem resolution, customer satisfaction).

3.1.3 (U) Outcome The Government will assign a Performance Confidence Assessment:

• Substantial Confidence

• Satisfactory Confidence

• Limited Confidence

• No Confidence

• Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

3.1.4 (U) Interaction with Technical and Cost/Price:

Strong Past Performance increases the Government’s confidence in your Technical approach. Weak or negative Past Performance reduces confidence, even if your Technical proposal appears strong. Past Performance is a key discriminator when Technical proposals are close.

4. (U) FACTOR 3 – COST/PRICE.

4.1.1 (U) Overview Purpose: To evaluate whether your proposed prices are fair, reasonable, realistic, and balanced, and to determine the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for best value tradeoff.

4.1.2 (U) What the Government will assess:

4.1.2.1 (U) Price Reasonableness (all CLINs and Appendix B labor rates) Is the price fair and reasonable in comparison to competition, historical data, and market research?

4.1.2.2 (U) Cost Realism (Cost-Reimbursable and CPAF CLINs) Are proposed costs realistic for the work to be performed? Do they reflect a clear understanding of the requirements? Are they consistent with your Technical and staffing approach?

4.1.2.3 (U) Unbalanced Pricing Are some CLINs significantly over or underpriced in a way that creates unacceptable risk?

4.1.3 (U) Total Evaluated Price (TEP):

TEP =Your Total Proposed Price (TPP), plus Government Most Probable Cost (MPC) adjustments (for CR/CPAF CLINs), plus Data rights costs (as applicable).

4.1.4 (U) Interaction with Technical and Past Performance:

The Government may select a higher-priced proposal if its Technical and Past Performance advantages justify the price premium. When Technical and Past Performance are essentially equal, lower TEP may be the deciding factor.

5. (U) KEY TAKEAWAYS.

5.1.1 (U) The Pass/Fail Criteria Ensure Subfactor 1.1 (Admin Requirements) and Subfactor 1.5 (Configuration Management) clearly meet Threshold expectations. A FAIL makes your proposal unawardable as submitted.

5.1.2 (U) Focus on Emerging Requirements (Subfactor 1.3) This is the primary Technical discriminator. Provide a thoughtful, realistic, scenario-driven response that demonstrates how you manage complexity, protect baseline operations, and handle uncertainty.

5.1.3 (U) Make Staffing and SE Real, Not Generic:

Show a clear, traceable link between (1) your Technical approach, (2) Your staffing plan (Subfactor 1.2), and (3) your SE approach (Subfactor 1.4), and (4) your Cost/Price Volume.

Avoid boilerplate by tailoring your approach to HADES’ multi-mission, multi-level environment.

5.1.4 (U) Leverage Past Performance:

Choose past performance examples that are truly relevant to HADES in scope and complexity. Provide clear, quantitative evidence of success.

5.1.5 (U) Align Price with Your Story:

Ensure your cost proposal is consistent with your Technical and staffing approaches. Unrealistically low costs can indicate under-resourcing and may reduce confidence in your proposal.

6. (U) TABLES.

Table 1. (U) Technical Factor: Subfactors Overview

SUBFACTOR TITLE EVALUATION TYPE ROLE /

IMPORTANCE

1.1 PM – Administrative

Requirements Pass/Fail Must pass before award

1.2 PM – Staffing/Labor Profile Adjectival

(Technical Capability & Risk)

Secondary discriminator

PM adequacy & realism

1.3 PM – Emerging Requirements

Response

Adjectival (Technical Capability & Risk)

MOST

SIGNIFICANT

PM subfactor

Primary

1.4 SE – Approach and Methodology Adjectival

(Technical Capability & Risk)

Secondary

SE maturity & tailoring

1.5 SE – Configuration Management Pass/Fail Must pass before

award

6. (U) TABLES.