10._Attachment_6_TAP_Lab_-_OBAC_Support_Services_Section_M_v3.7.docx.pdf

REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SPACE AND MISSILE SYSTEMS CENTER 2

REMOTE SENSING SYSTEMS DIRECTORATE 3

Tools, Applications, and Processing (TAP) Laboratory and 5

Overhead Persistent Infrared (OPIR) Battlespace 6

Awareness Center (OBAC) Support Services (TLOSS) 7

SECTION M 25

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 26

7 January 2019 27

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 28

1.0 Source Selection 29

1.1 Basis for Contract Award 30

This is a best value source selection, conducted in accordance with the Federal Acquisition 31

Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Acquisition 32

Regulation Supplements (DFARS) and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation 33

Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) 34

FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon 35 an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk, Past Performance and Cost. A contract 36 will be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as 37 supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated 38 terms, conditions, representations, certification, and all other information required by Section L 39 of this solicitation) and is judged based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the 40 best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the Air 41

Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed, the requirements. This may result 42 in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the 43 evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the 44 technical and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher price Offeror 45 outweighs the cost difference. 46

The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against 47 all source selection criteria in the solicitation as described in Sections 3.0 through 5.0. While the 48

Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, 49 the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is 50 implicit throughout the entire process. 51

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded 52

The Government intends to award a single contract for TAP Lab/OBAC Support Services. 53

1.3 Competitive Advantage from Use of Government Furnished Equipment/Information 54

GFE/GFI) 55

The GFE/GFI listed in Section J, Attachment 2 to this solicitation is equally available to all Offerors. 56 No additional GFE/GFI will be provided. 57

1.4 Discussions 58

The Government intends to make award upon evaluation of initial proposals without discussions. 59

Therefore, offerors are highly encouraged to use their best efforts in proposal preparation and to 60 include their very best terms in their offer. If it is determined to be in the Government’s best 61 interests, a competitive range may be established and discussions may be held. In that case, to 62 promote effectiveness in the competition and efficiency in the evaluation, the Government will 63 initially set, and may potentially make any later adjustments to, the competitive range of only the 64 most highly rated proposals considering: (1) whether the number of proposals received exceeds 65 the amount at which the competition can be effectively managed to warrant a reduction in the 66 number of proposals selected for further evaluation or discussion, (2) a proposal’s potential to 67 achieve complete correction through efficient, equitable use of discussions, or (3) any particular 68 advantage or benefit that a proposal presents which is worthy, in the Government’s judgment, to 69 pursue through discussions, based on the evaluation criteria described in Section 3 of this 70 document. 71

If included in the competitive range, the Offeror shall provide Evaluation Notices (EN) responses 72 and submit change pages that update all affected volumes of the Offeror’s proposal. Additional 73 instructions will be provided with ENs. If the Government enters into discussions, the 74

Government reserves the right to not go into discussions on the Subfactor 1 scenario response 75 described in paragraph 3.3.1. Therefore, technical acceptability and technical risk of the scenario 76 response may be based on the initial submission. As such, the Offeror shall ensure that each 77 component of the scenario is thoroughly addressed. 78

1.5 Number of Proposals 79

Each Offeror shall submit only one proposal as the prime Offeror. 80

1.6 Solicitation Requirements, Terms & Conditions 81

Offerors are required to meet all terms and conditions of the solicitation. Failure to comply may 82 result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Alternate proposals will not be considered. 83

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS 84

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors 85

Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government 86 based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and sub-factors described below: 87

2.1.1 Factor 1: Technical 88

2.1.1.1 Subfactor 1: Sample Problem Response 89

2.1.1.2 Subfactor 2: Staffing Plan 90

2.1.1.3 Subfactor 3: Sustainment of 3rd Party Capabilities 91

2.1.2 Factor 2: Past Performance 92

2.1.3 Factor 2: Cost 93

2.2 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors 94

The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: In accordance with FAR 95

15.304, Factor 1 is significantly more important than Factor 2 which more important than Factor 96

3. However, cost and past performance will contribute to the selection decision. Within the 97

Technical Factor, Subfactor 1 is significantly more important than Subfactor 2 and Subfactor 3 98 which are approximately equal. 99

3.0 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL SUBFACTOR EVALUATION RATINGS 100

The Technical Evaluation provides for two distinct but related ratings: the Technical Rating and the 101 Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each Technical 102 subfactor. A Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating will be given at the subfactor level. The 103 subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating and risk rating for the Technical 104 Factor. 105

3.1 Technical Rating 106

The technical rating provides an assessment of the quality of the Offeror’s approach for meeting the 107 Government’s requirement. Each Technical subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described 108 in DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 31 March 2016, Table 3-1: Technical Ratings, 109 excerpted below. They focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the Offeror’s proposal. The color 110 rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Offerors 111 are hereby notified that the Government may incorporate the bases for any Strengths earned by the 112 Offeror into the resulting Contract. If the Offeror does not agree to such incorporation, then the 113 Government may choose not to consider those Strengths when making the best value determination. 114

STRENGTH: A Strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds 115 specified performance or capability requirements in a way that is advantageous to the 116

Government during contract performance. 117

DEFICIENCY: A deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government 118 requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of 119 unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. 120

Table 3-1: Technical Ratings 121

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

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

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

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 not awardable.

3.2 Technical Risk Rating 123

Assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), 124 considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the 125 need for increased government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. 126

WEAKNESS: A weakness is a flaw in the Offeror’s proposal that increases the risk of 127 unsuccessful contract performance. 128

SIGNIFICANT WEAKNESS: A significant weakness is a flaw in the Offeror’s proposal 129 that appreciably increases risk of unsuccessful contract performance. 130

The Technical subfactors will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in Table 3-2: 131

Technical Risk Ratings, excerpted below. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the 132 technical approach in meeting the requirement. 133

Table 3-2: Technical Risk Ratings 134

Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

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

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

3.3 Technical Subfactors 136

The three technical subfactors will be evaluated in accordance with Table 6-1: Best Value 137

Matrix 138

3.3.1 Subfactor 1: Sample Problem Response 139

3.3.1.1 Description 140

This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s response to a sample scenario that matures capability 141 between TAP Lab and OBAC. This requirement is met when the offeror’s response clearly 142 demonstrates their understanding of the TAP Lab and OBAC environments by describing the 143 processes, roles, relevant schedule milestones, and responsibilities of all players involved in 144 advancing capabilities into operations. 145

3.3.2 Subfactor 2: Staffing Plan 146

3.3.2.1 Description 147

This subfactor evaluates the contractor’s proposed staffing plan. This requirement is met when 148 the contractor’s proposed staffing plan addresses all PWS requirements, documents realistic 149 hiring timelines and skill mix, and describes appropriate number of FTEs, qualifications, and 150 experience for all proposed positions. 151

3.3.3 Subfactor 3: 3rd Party Developed Capability Sustainment 152

3.3.3.1 Description 153

This subfactor evaluates the contractors approach to sustain capabilities developed by 3rd Party 154 developers (reference PWS Paragraph 4.7). This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal 155 documents a sound process whereby the support services contractor will assume responsibility 156 for the sustainment of software applications and other software capabilities developed by 3rd 157 party developers. 158

4.0 FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE 159

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the 160 solicitation requirements. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: Recency, 161 Relevancy (including context of data), and Quality (including general trends in contractor 162 performance and source of information). 163

4.1 Recency 164

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To 165 be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three (3) years 166 from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition 167 will not be evaluated. 168

4.2 Relevancy 169

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information 170 obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those 171 contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price factor. For each past performance 172 citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the 173

Technical subfactors and Cost/Price factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this 174 acquisition may be considered). A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance 175 will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) 176 and major and critical subcontractor(s), as described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 177

4-1. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, 178 or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose 179 contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information forms (PIFs) and 180 information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past 181 performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing 182 recent, relevant contracts. 183

Table 4-1: Past Performance Relevancy Rating 186

Rating Description

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.

4.3 Performance Confidence Assessment 188

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments 189 described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4-2: Performance Confidence 190

Assessments, excerpted below. 191

Table 4-2: Performance Confidence Assessments 192

Rating Description

Substantial

Confidence

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

Satisfactory

Confidence

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

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

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.

5.0 FACTOR 2: COST 194

5.1 Government Cost Evaluation 195

The Offeror’s cost proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness, realism, and unbalanced 196 pricing. In the evaluation, the Government may use data, external to the Offeror’s proposal, 197 such as, but not limited to, field pricing reports, industry information, Government estimates, 198 same or similar DoD contracts, and commercial data. For all CLIN types, the evaluation of 199 options will not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The Government-calculated 200

TEP will be presented to the Source Selection Authority for the best value trade-off decision. 201

5.2 Total Evaluated Price (TEP) 202

The Government will calculate a TEP as shown below in Table 5-1: Total Evaluated Price. 203

Table 5-1: Total Evaluated Price 204

CLIN

(A)

Title

(B)

Contract

Type

(C)

Cost $

(D)

Fee $

(E)

Total CLIN

Amount

0001 SOFA Specific Support

Services - Base

CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed

Fixed

Fee

D+E

0002 TAP Lab and OBAC support services - Base

CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed

Fixed

Fee

D+E

0003 Other Direct Costs/Travel

- Base

CR $5,500,000 N/A D+E

1001 SOFA Specific Support

Services - Option 1

CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed

Fixed

Fee

D+E

1002 TAP Lab and OBAC support services - Option 1

CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed

Fixed

Fee

D+E

1003 Other Direct Costs/Travel

- Option 1

CR $5,250,000 N/A D+E

2001 SOFA Specific Support

Services - Option 2

CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed

Fixed

Fee

D+E

2002 TAP Lab and OBAC support services - Option 2

CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed

Fixed

Fee

D+E

2003 Other Direct Costs/Travel

- Option 2

CR $750,000 N/A D

3001 SOFA Specific Support

Services - Option 3

CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed

Fixed

Fee

D

3002 TAP Lab and OBAC support services - Option 3

CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed

Fixed

Fee

D

3003 Other Direct Costs/Travel

- Option 3

CR $750,000 N/A D

4001 3rd Party Developed

Capability Sustainment -

Option 1

CPFF Offeror to fill in

D+E

4002 3rd Party Developed

Capability Sustainment -

Option 2

CPFF Offeror to fill in

D+E

4003 3rd Party Developed

Capability Sustainment -

Option 3

CPFF Offeror to fill in

D+E

4004 3rd Party Developed

Capability Sustainment -

Option 4

CPFF Offeror to fill in

D+E

4005 3rd Party Developed

Capability Sustainment -

Option 5

CPFF Offeror to fill in

D+E

5001 CDRL (data and reports) NSP NSP NSP NSP

5002 Other Direct Costs/Travel

- Extension

NSP NSP NSP NSP

6001 SOFA Specific Support

Services - Extension

CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed

Fixed

Fee

D+E

6002 TAP Lab and OBAC support services -

Extenstion

CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed

Fixed

Fee

D+E

6003 Other Direct Costs/Travel

- Option 1

CR $250,000 N/A D+E

6004 3rd Party Developed

Capability Sustainment -

Extension

CPFF Offeror to fill in

D+E

5.3 Evaluation Area Details 205

The proposal must contain sufficient details for the Government evaluation of the following 206 areas: 207

5.3.1 Reasonableness (Applies to all proposed prices) – 208

5.3.1.1 The offeror’s proposal will be assessed for reasonableness, where reasonableness is 209 an assessment of whether the price is too high. The price is reasonable, if, in its 210 nature and amount, does not exceed that amount which would be paid by a prudent 211 person in the conduct of competitive business. Reference FAR 31.201-3. 212

5.3.1.2 In conducting the reasonableness analysis, the Government will use one or more 213 analysis techniques described in, but not limited to, FAR 15.404-1. 214

5.3.1.3 A determination of unreasonableness will render the proposal un-awardable. 215

5.3.1.4 In addition, proposals that have been assessed to be technically unacceptable are 216 ineligible for award, and as a result, a reasonableness determination will not be made 217 for technically unacceptable, un-awardable proposals. 218

5.3.2 Realism (Applies to Cost-Reimbursable CLINs) 219

5.3.2.1 Cost realism analysis is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating 220 specific elements of each offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the 221 estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a 222 clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods 223 of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal. (FAR 224

15.404-1(d)(1). 225

5.3.2.2 The offeror’s proposal will be assessed for cost realism; the assessment will analyze 226 whether the proposed price is too low. 227

5.3.2.3 The offeror’s proposed costs as provided in the Cost Volume will be evaluated via a 228 cost analysis approach. This process involves the Government’s review and 229 evaluation of specific cost elements of the Offeror’s cost. Any proposed cost 230 element may be adjusted based upon the Government analysis of each proposed cost 231 element. 232

The cost analysis will consider the offeror’s proposed approach. 233

Cost adjustments will consider weaknesses in the technical proposal that impact 234 the costs. 235

Cost adjustments will also consider missing costs that will likely be incurred for 236 the contract with the proposed solution. 237

Cost adjustments will consider any Offeror-initiated unsubstantiated decrements 238 to historical hours/costs. 239

It is the intent that all cost adjustments will be upward; there will not be any 240 downward adjustments. 241

The cost adjustments will result in the Government’s Most Probable that will 242 become part of the TEP calculation for best value consideration. 243

5.3.2.4 No MPC adjustment will be made for deficiencies; however, deficiencies may render 244 your proposal unrealistic. 245

5.3.2.5 The offeror’s proposal must be clear and convincing in demonstrating that the costs 246 in the offeror’s proposal are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear 247 understanding for the requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of 248 performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal (FAR 249

15.404-1(d)). 250

5.3.2.6 Over-proposing of unwanted tasks and associated costs will NOT result in a 251 probable cost adjustment but may result in an unreasonableness determination. 252

5.3.2.7 An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of realism 253 poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. 254

5.3.3 Unbalanced Pricing (Applies to all contract line items) 255

5.3.3.1 The offeror’s proposal will be assessed for the presence of unbalanced pricing. 256

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price 257 of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by 258 the application of cost or price analysis techniques. 259

5.3.3.2 An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of 260 balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. 261

5.3.4 Total Proposed Price (TPP) 262

The offeror’s proposal will assessed for accuracy in calculating the proposed Total Proposed 263

Price (TPP) and for compliance with the instructions for calculating the proposed Total Proposed 264

Price. 265

5.3.5 Total Evaluated Price (TEP) 266

The Government will adjust the proposed TPP to incorporate the Government’s Most Probable 267

Cost, and the Government-calculated TEP will be used in the best value decision process. 268

5.3.6 Insufficient Details 269

To support the determination of reasonableness, realism, or non-presence of unbalanced pricing, 270 initially or subsequently, may be a consideration for excluding the offeror’s proposal from the 271 competitive range and further consideration for award. The burden of proof rests with the 272 offeror. 273

5.3.7 Consistency 274

The Government will compare the information the Offeror provides in Section B of the Model 275

Contract to the information the Offeror provides in Volume III to ensure the information in the 276 former is identical to that in the latter. The Government reserves the right to determine that, if 277 any inconsistency exists between the Model Contract and Volume III, the Model Contract will 278 take precedence. In the event there is inconsistency, the value in the Model Contract will be used 279 in the TPP calculation. 280

5.4 Data in Volume III 282

5.4.1 Contractor Responsibility. 283

Data in Sections A-K of the solicitation will be compared to the CLIN amounts and Rate 284

Schedules in the Cost/Price Volume to ensure that the prices in the Cost Volume flow to the 285

CLINs in a consistent and accurate manner. Inaccuracy and inconsistency will be assessed as a 286 responsibility issue. 287

5.4.2 COMPENSATION FOR PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES. 288

Utilizing the information submitted, based on the Professional Compensation Plan matrix, the 289

Government will evaluate the Offeror’s/subcontractor(s) total compensation plan(s) for 290 responsibility in accordance with Instruction to Offerors (ITO) and FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation 291 of Compensation for Professional Employees. The Government will ensure that Offerors 292 provided adequate Total Compensation Plan(s), Surveys and Studies, and Assessment(s) in 293 accordance with ITO, for this solicitation. 294

5.4.3 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 295

The Government will review the Offeror’s OCI Mitigation Plan along with a completed OCI 296

Mitigation Plan Checklist to ensure compliance with AFFARS 5352.209-9000 ALT II, III, IV, & 297

VI (Oct 2010), for areas of potential conflicts for the Contract. 298

6.0 Best Value Matrix 299

Offeror’s proposals will be assessed using the Best Value Matrix shown in Table 6-1. 300

Table 6-1: Best Value Matrix 301

Factor/

Subfactor

Technical Rating Technical Risk

Rating Technical Rating

Technical Risk

Rating Technical Rating

Technical Risk

Rating

Outstanding

Good

Acceptable

Marginal

Unacceptable

Low

Moderate

High

Unacceptable

Outstanding

Good

Acceptable

Marginal

Unacceptable

Low

Moderate

High

Unacceptable

Outstanding

Good

Acceptable

Marginal

Unacceptable

Low

Moderate

High

Unacceptable

Factor 2: Cost

Subfactor 1: Sample Problem

Response

Subfactor 3: 3rd Party Capability

Sustainment Subfactor 2: Staffing Matrix

Factor 1:

Technical

Cost Realism

(Yes / No)

Price Reasonableness

(Yes / No)

Balanced Pricing

(Yes / No)