09_Attachment_6_EELV_Phase_2_Evaluation_Criteria.docx

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Phase 2 Launch Service Procurement

FA8811-19-R-0002

Attachment 6 Evaluation Criteria

3 December 2018

PRE-DECISIONAL

Evaluation Criteria FA8811-19-R-0002

PRE-DECISIONAL

The Air Force is seeking industry's feedback on the EELV Phase 2 Launch Service Procurement (LSP) draft Request for Proposal (RFP), which is designed to provide Assured Access to Space for National Security Space (NSS) Requirements. This is industry's opportunity to provide the Air Force feedback on this draft RFP and how industry can best meet NSS launch requirements, provide the warfighters the launch flexibility they need, while leveraging commercial launch capability. This is the first of two draft EELV Phase 2 RFPs the Air Force plans to release.

1. Responsibility Determination The Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) will make a responsibility determination in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 9.104-1 after the evaluation of proposals to determine whether an Offeror is eligible for contract award. The PCO will consider directly relevant early integration studies, anomaly findings, and the Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) Commander’s certification of the Offeror’s proposed launch system as a certified Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) launch system to determine adequate technical skill, among other standards listed in the FAR 9.104-1, to launch Nation Security Space (NSS) missions.

1. Basis For Contract Award This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with FAR 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force FAR Supplement (AFFARS), and Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures dated 31 March 2016. The Government intends to award two contracts to the two Offerors that the Government deems most capable of meeting NSS mission requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications and all other information required by the Instructions to Offerors of this solicitation) based on a best value determination. The Offeror determined to be the best value to the Government will be designated the “Requirement 1” provider. The Offeror determined to be the next best value to the Government will be designated as the “Requirement 2” provider. The Offerors will need to be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.1, as supplemented by DFARS and AFFARS, and proposals must conform to the solicitation's requirements to be eligible for award. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity in its evaluations, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective, and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

Evaluation Methodology The following evaluation Factors and Sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The awarded contract instrument will incorporate as expected performance requirements all beneficial features/aspects of the awardee’s proposal and “above-threshold” (minimum) attributes, performance levels, or capabilities for which evaluation credit was given in the source selection process.

Table 2.2-1: Evaluation Factors and Sub-factors

Sub-factor 2: Category B Molniya

Sub-factor 3: Category B GEO 1.5

Sub-factor 2: Polar 2

Factor 4: Past Performance

Confidence Assessment Rating

Factor 5: Price

Reasonableness, Unbalanced Pricing, Total Evaluated Price

Relative Importance of Factors and Sub-Factors Factors 1 and 2 are of equal importance and are more important than Factor 3 which is more important than Factor 4. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), when combined, Factors 1 through 4 are significantly more important than Factor 5, Price. Within Factor 1, the Sub-factors 1, 2 and 3 are of equal importance, and are individually more important than Sub-factor 4. Within Factor 2, the Sub-factors 1 and 2 are of equal importance, and are individually more important than Sub-factor 3. Within Factor 3, Sub-factor 1 is more important than Sub-factor 2 which is significantly more important than Sub-factor 3, Small Business Participation.

Number of Contracts to Be Awarded The Government intends to award two contracts for the EELV Phase 2 Launch Service Procurement; the “Requirement 1” contract to the “Best Value” Offeror, and the “Requirement 2” contract to the “Next Best Value” Offeror. The “Requirement 1” or “Requirement 2” launch service distributions will be as described in Table 1 in 52.212-4 (aa) Ordering Procedure of the model contract.

General Instructions The Government will evaluate, in accordance with this attachment, information the Offeror provides in accordance with Attachment 5, Instructions to Offerors, with the exception of the executive summary. The Government may consider other information relevant to the proposals (e.g., Early Integration Study results, anomaly resolution, past performance). Proposals must conform to this Request for Proposal (RFP). Any submitted proposal that does not adhere to the requirements in this RFP may be determined to be nonresponsive, and therefore, maybe eliminated from the competition and ineligible for award.

Discussions If discussions are deemed necessary and in the best interest of the Government, the Government shall make a competitive range determination (see FAR 15.306(c)). Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) shall be requested for evaluation and award from all Offerors who remain in the competitive range. The Government reserves the right to record audio telecommunications with the Offerors during the source selection. If discussions occur, the Government reserves the right to request proposal updates. Requested proposal updates may include directly relevant early integration study results, anomaly resolution findings, progress toward completing open Non-recurring Design Validation (NRDV) and progress toward closing risk mitigation plans. Any proposal updates shall be evaluated according to the evaluation criteria specified here.

Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, small business subcontracting plan, organizational conflict of interest analysis results, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as Factors or Sub-factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. The Government reserves the right to cross-reference between volumes and sections of volumes to support proposal evaluation.

1. Correction Potential of Proposals In accordance with FAR 15.306(d)(5), an Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range at any time during discussions if it is no longer considered to be among the most highly rated Offerors being considered for award, whether or not all material aspects of the proposal have been discussed, or whether or not the Offeror has been afforded an opportunity to submit a proposal revision.

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of proposals. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror's proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered reasonably correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1. Evaluation of Technical Factor 1

3. Evaluation of Technical Factors 1 and 2 The Technical rating evaluates the quality of the Offeror’s proposed technical solution for meeting the Government requirements. The Technical Risk rating considers the risk associated with the proposed technical approach to meeting the requirement. The System Readiness Sub-factors will only receive a Technical Risk rating.

The Government will assign a Technical rating, as described in Table 6.2.1-1 below, for applicable or included Sub-factors, as identified in Table 2.2-1. The Government may assign Strengths or Deficiencies in the Offeror’s proposal. Strengths and Deficiencies are defined as follows:

A “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. The Government reserves the right to incorporate a “Strength” process or feature into the awarded contract.

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

The Government will assign a Technical Risk rating, as described Table 6.2.2-1 below, for applicable or included Sub-factors, as identified in Table 2.2-1. Assessment of Technical Risk, which is accomplished through the identification of weaknesses and significant weaknesses, considers potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful performance. Weakness and significant weakness are defined as follows:

A “weakness” means a flaw that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

A “significant weakness” in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

3. Ratings Technical Sub-factors, as identified in Table 2.2-1, will receive one of the ratings described in Table 6.2.1-1 below:

Table 6.2.1-1: Technical Sub-factor Ratings

Technical Sub-factors, as identified in Table 2.2-1, will receive one of the risk ratings described in Table 6.2.2-1 below.

Table 6.2.2-1: Technical Sub-factors Risk Ratings

3. Technical Factor 1, Sub-Factor 1: Category B LEO LEO Mission Profile/Sequence of Events: The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed approach for the Category B LEO mission profile is technically sound. This includes data and supporting evidence for flight demonstrated mission profile portions as specified in Attachment 5, paragraph 6.1.2. The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s analyses appropriately identify, assess, and mitigate risks for undemonstrated mission profile portions/unproven capabilities. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 6.1.2) LEO Mass-to-Orbit/Orbital Injection Accuracy: The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed mass-to-orbit capability meets Government requirements and whether the methodology and justification supporting the proposed mass-to-orbit capability is technically sound. The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed orbital injection accuracy meets Government requirements and whether the methodology and justification supporting proposed orbital injection accuracy, for both the primary SV and EELV Secondary Payload Adapter (ESPA) class satellites, is technically sound. The Government may consider it a strength (or strengths) if the Offeror’s mass-to-orbit and/or orbital injection accuracy exceeds the minimum requirements in a beneficial or advantageous way. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraphs 6.1.1 and 6.1.3) LEO Launch Operations Concept of Operations (CONOPS): The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed Launch Operations CONOPS demonstrates compliance with the requirements in the Phase 2 LEO IRD and is technically sound. The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s approach to Integrated Payload Stack (IPS)/LV processing and encapsulation at the proposed payload processing facility (PPF) demonstrates technically sound procedures. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach for LV to IPS mechanical and electrical interface verification for demonstrated compliance with the requirements in the Phase 2 LEO IRD. The Government may consider it a strength (or strengths) if the Offeror’s solution exceeds the Government requirements in a beneficial or advantageous way. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 6.1.4) LEO Mission Unique Integration (Secondary Payloads): The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s rideshare approach is technically sound. This includes integration of four ESPA-class Auxiliary Satellites (ASVs) on the ESPA Grande carrier and into the IPS on the LV. The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s approach for launch and deployment of the ASVs on-orbit is technically sound. The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s approach to “Do-No-Harm” is technically sound. The Government may consider it a strength (or strengths) if the Offeror’s solution exceeds the Government requirements in a beneficial or advantageous way. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 6.1.5) LEO Environments: The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed approach to meeting the IPS acoustic environment requirements is technically sound. The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed approach to meeting IPS oscillation requirements is technically sound. The Government may consider it a strength (or strengths) if the Offeror’s solution exceeds the Government requirements in a beneficial or advantageous way. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 6.1.6)

3. Technical Factor 1, Sub-Factor 2: Category B Molniya Molniya Mission Profile/Sequence of Events: The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed approach for the Category B Molniya mission profile is technically sound. This includes data and supporting evidence for flight demonstrated mission profile portions as specified in Attachment 5, paragraph 6.2.2. The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s analyses appropriately identify, assess, and mitigate risks for undemonstrated mission profile portions/unproven capabilities. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 6.2.2) Molniya Mass-to-Orbit/Orbital Injection Accuracy: The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed mass-to-orbit capability meets Government requirements and whether the methodology and justification supporting the proposed mass-to-orbit capability is technically sound. The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed orbital injection accuracy meets Government requirements and whether the methodology and justification supporting proposed orbital injection accuracy is technically sound. The Government may consider it a strength (or strengths) if the Offeror’s mass-to-orbit and/or orbital injection accuracy exceeds the minimum requirements in a beneficial or advantageous way. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraphs 6.2.1 and 6.2.3) Molniya Vertical Integration: The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed approach to vertical integration is technically sound. The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed approaches to a PLF-adjacent work area, and its launch complex EGSE room, are technically sound. The Government may consider it a strength if the Offeror’s solution exceeds the Government requirements in a beneficial or advantageous way. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 6.2.4) Molniya Environments: The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed approach to meeting the SV acoustic environment requirements is technically sound. The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed approach to meeting the LV-to-SV shock requirements is technically sound. The Government may consider it a strength (or strengths) if the Offeror’s solution exceeds the Government requirements in a beneficial or advantageous way. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 6.2.5) Molniya RF Attenuation: The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed approach to payload fairing RF attenuation is technically sound. The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed approach to shielding the payload compartment from internal LV RF sources is technically sound. The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed approach to testing RF shielding effectiveness is technically sound. The Government may consider it a strength (or strengths) if the Offeror’s solution exceeds the Government requirements in a beneficial or advantageous way. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 6.2.6)

3. Technical Factor 1, Sub-Factor 3: Category B GEO 1.5 GEO 1.5 Mission Profile/Sequence of Events: The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed approach for the Category B GEO 1.5 mission profile is technically sound. This includes data and supporting evidence for flight demonstrated mission profile portions as specified in Attachment 5, paragraph 6.3.2. The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s analyses appropriately identify, assess, and mitigate risks for undemonstrated mission profile portions/unproven capabilities. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 6.3.2) GEO 1.5 Mass-to-Orbit/Orbital Injection Accuracy: The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed mass-to-orbit capability meets Government requirements and whether the methodology and justification supporting the proposed mass-to-orbit capability is technically sound. The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed orbital injection accuracy meets Government requirements and whether the methodology and justification supporting proposed orbital injection accuracy is technically sound. The Government may consider it a strength (or strengths) if the Offeror’s orbital injection accuracy exceeds the minimum requirements between Attachment 5, paragraph 6.3.1 and the SPRD GEO 1.5 reference orbit requirements in a beneficial or advantageous way. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraphs 6.3.1 and 6.3.3) GEO 1.5 Mission Unique Integration (Co-Manifested Payloads): The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s approach for co-manifesting, to include: 1) the integration of an augmented ESPA aft payload and a testbed SV forward payload, 2) the encapsulation process, 3) forward and aft payload access during integration and prior to final closeouts, 4) meeting unique environmental control system requirements for both payloads while encapsulated on the launch pad, and 5) launch environments for the two payloads, separation attitude and re-contact analyses, and multiple separation signal/circuit capabilities is technically sound. The Government will also evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s approach for launch and deployment of the augmented ESPA into the same initial orbit as the testbed SV is technically sound. The Government may consider it a strength (or strengths) if the Offeror’s solution exceeds the Government requirements in a beneficial or advantageous way. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 6.3.4) GEO 1.5 Long Coast: The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s approach to conducting in-flight propellant management for the extended duration GEO 1.5 mission is technically sound. The Government will also evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s approach to propellant re-pressurization, reaction control system propellant management, management of in-flight electrostatic discharge, in-flight battery power requirements, meeting thermal requirements, and communication is technically sound. The Government may consider it a strength if the Offeror’s solution exceeds the Government requirements in a beneficial or advantageous way. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 6.3.5) GEO 1.5 Classified Payload Management: The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed approach to manage and process classified payloads (Special Access Program/Special Access Required) and to handle and protect classified mission data (requirements, analysis inputs and results) is technically sound. The Government may consider it a strength if the Offeror’s solution exceeds the Government requirements in a beneficial or advantageous way. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 6.3.6) GEO 1.5 Environments: The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed approach to meeting the SV acoustic environment requirements is technically sound. The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed approach to meeting the LV-to-SV low frequency sine vibration requirements is technically sound. The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed approach to meeting the LV-to-SV shock requirements is technically sound. The Government may consider it a strength (or strengths) if the Offeror’s solution exceeds the Government requirements in a beneficial or advantageous way. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 6.3.7)

3. Technical Factor 1, Sub-Factor 4: Category A/B System Readiness The Government will evaluate the quality and risk associated with the Offeror’s Payload Envelope Category A/B system(s) development and certification activities to support Phase 2 Initial Launch Capability (ILC) dates. If the Offeror is proposing one system that will meet both Category A/B and Category C reference orbits requirements, the Government will still evaluate its readiness in each Category separately.

Category A/B System Readiness: The Government will consider the LSMAP assessments and evaluate the Offeror’s plan to meet all the requirements of the Category A/B reference orbits and be ready to meet an ILC of 1 April 2022 for Cape Canaveral AFS/Kennedy Space Center, and an ILC of 1 October 2024 for Vandenberg AFB, based upon its corresponding technical and schedule maturity assessments. This area will be evaluated for Technical Risk only. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 6.4.1)

1. Evaluation of Technical Factor 2 Technical Factor 2, Sub-Factor 1: Category C GEO 2 GEO 2 Mission Profile/Sequence of Events: The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed approach for the Category C GEO 2 mission profile is technically sound. This includes data and supporting evidence for flight demonstrated mission profile portions as specified in Attachment 5, paragraph 7.1.2. The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s analyses appropriately identify, assess, and mitigate risks for undemonstrated mission profile portions/unproven capabilities. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 7.1.2) GEO 2 Mass-to-Orbit/Orbital Injection Accuracy: The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed mass-to-orbit capability meets Government requirements and whether the methodology and justification supporting the proposed mass-to-orbit capability is technically sound. The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed orbital injection accuracy meets Government requirements and whether the methodology and justification supporting proposed orbital injection accuracy is technically sound. The Government may consider it a strength (or strengths) if the Offeror’s mass-to-orbit and/or orbital injection accuracy exceeds, in a beneficial or advantageous way, the SPRD GEO 2 reference orbit requirements. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraphs 7.1.1 and 7.1.3) GEO 2 Mission Support Equipment (MSE) Accommodations: The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed approach to providing mechanical interfaces to the MSE is technically sound. This includes the extent to which, the Offeror’s mechanical interface is able to withstand launch and ascent loading events while maintaining adequate positive PLF to SV clearance. The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed MSE installation approach during the encapsulation process is technically sound. The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed flight profile to meet the MSE release and retraction quiescent period is technically sound. The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s capability to issue MSE arm and fire discrete commands is technically sound. The Government may consider it a strength if the Offeror’s solution exceeds the Government requirements in a beneficial or advantageous way. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 7.1.4) GEO 2 Vertical Integration: The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed approach to vertical integration is technically sound. The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed approach to a PLF-adjacent work area is technically sound. The Government may consider it a strength if the Offeror’s solution exceeds the Government requirements in a beneficial or advantageous way. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 7.1.5) GEO 2 Environments: The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed approach to meeting the LV-to-SV shock requirements is technically sound. The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed approach to meeting the SV acoustic environment requirements is technically sound. The Government may consider it a strength (or strengths) if the Offeror’s solution exceeds the Government requirements in a beneficial or advantageous way. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 7.1.6) GEO 2 Radio Frequency (RF) Attenuation: The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed approach to payload fairing RF attenuation is technically sound. The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed approach to shielding the payload compartment from internal LV RF sources is technically sound. The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed approach to testing RF shielding effectiveness is technically sound. The Government may consider it a strength (or strengths) if the Offeror’s solution exceeds the Government requirements in a beneficial or advantageous way. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 7.1.7) Technical Factor 2, Sub-Factor 2: Category C Polar 2 Polar 2 Mission Profile/Sequence of Events: The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s approach for the Category C Polar 2 mission profile is technically sound. This includes data and supporting evidence for flight demonstrated mission profile portions as specified in Attachment 5, paragraph 7.2.2. The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s analyses appropriately identify, assess, and mitigate risks for undemonstrated mission profile portions/unproven capabilities. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 7.2.2) Polar 2 Mass-to-Orbit/Orbital Injection Accuracy: The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed mass-to-orbit capability meets Government requirements and whether the methodology and justification supporting proposed mass-to-orbit capability is technically sound. The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed orbital injection accuracy meets Government requirements and whether the methodology and justification supporting proposed orbital injection accuracy is technically sound. The Government may consider it a strength (or strengths) if the Offeror’s mass-to-orbit and/or orbital injection accuracy exceeds, in a beneficial or advantageous way, the SPRD Polar 2 reference orbit requirements. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraphs 7.2.1 and 7.2.3) Polar 2 Mechanical Interfaces: The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed approach to interfacing with the A-Frame mechanisms is technically sound. This includes the extent to which the Offeror’s ability to meet and maintain envelope, clearance, Payload Fairing access door, and mechanical attachment requirements is technically sound. The Government may consider it a strength if the Offeror’s solution exceeds the Government requirements in a beneficial or advantageous way. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 7.2.4) Polar 2 Vertical Integration: The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s approach to vertical integration is technically sound. The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed approach to a PLF-adjacent work area is technically sound. The Government may consider it a strength if the Offeror’s solution exceeds the Government requirements in a beneficial or advantageous way. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraphs 7.2.5) Polar 2 Spot Cooling: The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed approach to spot cooling meets Government requirement, and whether the methodology and justification supporting the spot cooling capability is technically sound. The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed capability meets cleanliness requirements and is technically sound. The Government may consider it a strength if the Offeror’s solution exceeds the Government requirements in a beneficial or advantageous way. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraphs 7.2.6) Technical Factor 2, Sub-Factor 3: Category C System Readiness The Government will evaluate the quality and risk associated with the Offeror’s Payload Envelope Category C system development and certification activities to support Phase 2 Initial Launch Capability (ILC) dates. If the Offeror is proposing one system that will meet both Category A/B and Category C reference orbits requirements, the Government will still evaluate its readiness in each Category separately.

Category C System Readiness: The Government will consider the LSMAP assessments and evaluate the Offeror’s plan to meet all the requirements of the Category C reference orbits and be ready to meet an ILC of 1 September 2025, based upon its corresponding technical and schedule maturity assessments. This area will be evaluated for Technical Risk only. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 7.3.1) Evaluation of EELV Approach Factor 3 Evaluation of EELV Approach Factor The EELV Approach evaluation will receive a Technical and Technical Risk rating. The Technical rating evaluates the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. The Technical Risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach to meeting the requirement.

The Government will assign a Technical rating to Sub-factor 1, Special Interest Areas, as described in Table 6.2.1-1 above. The Government may assign Strengths or Deficiencies in the Offeror’s proposal. Strengths and Deficiencies are defined in paragraphs 6.1.1.1 and 6.1.1.2 above, respectively.

The Government will assign a Technical Risk rating to Sub-factors 1 and 2 as described in Table 6.2.2-1 above. Assessment of Technical Risk, which is accomplished through the identification of weaknesses and significant weaknesses, considers potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful performance. Weakness and significant weakness are defined in paragraphs 6.1.2.1 and 6.1.2.2 above, respectively.

The Small Business Participation Sub-factor evaluation results in Offerors receiving a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” as depicted in Table 8.1.3-1. The Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) focuses on the Offeror’s performance in the utilization of small business concerns and its evaluation will be included within the rating of the Small Business Participation Factor.

Table 8.1.3-1: Small Business Sub-factor Rating

Offerors must receive a Special Interest Areas Sub-Factor Technical rating of Marginal, Acceptable, Good, or Outstanding and receive a Special Interest Areas and Business Approach Sub-Factor Risk ratings of Moderate or Low to be eligible for award, reference Table 6.2.1-1 Technical Ratings and Table 6.2.2-1 Technical Risk Ratings. A Small Business Participation Sub-Factor rating of Unacceptable will make the Offeror ineligible for award.

Sub-factor 1: Special Interest Areas Area 1: Support to Government Mission Assurance Process The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s approach to supporting the Government Mission Assurance process is postured to provide low risk and high confidence in launching NSS missions. The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the Offeror’s approach to sharing command media and its ability to enable efficient, effective and responsive support to Government Mission Assurance. The Government will evaluate how the flow down of mission assurance requirements to subcontractors supports the Government Mission Assurance process. The Government will evaluate how the Offeror’s staffing plan enables responsive support to the Government Mission Assurance team. The Government will evaluate how the Offeror’s anomaly resolution and return to flight process supports the Government’s Mission Assurance process, as outlined in the SMC Technical Issue Resolution Process (TIRP) LRG-01, dated 15 August 2015. The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s approach to anomaly resolution and return to flight is technically sound. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 8.1.1) Area 2: Early Launch Accommodation The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s approach demonstrates the ability to accelerate the launch date on designated priority missions per Attachment 5, Instructions to Offerors, paragraph 8.1.2.

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, there are any factors that may limit the Offeror’s ability to accelerate the launch date. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 8.1.2)

4. Sub-Factor 2: Business Approach The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s plan to capture non-NSS market share supports its NSS launch service business strategy.

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s modernization (including production enhancements, obsolescence avoidance and technology injection) approach enables it to remain a reliable launch service provider for the entire contract period of performance (PoP). The government will evaluate the Offeror’s assessment of threats and opportunities and any areas of strategic or synergistic alignment with similar product lines offered for sale whether within the launch service business segment or elsewhere.

The government will evaluate the Offeror’s statement of cash flows to assess whether the Offeror will be able to meet its commitments, obligations, and objectives through the life of the contract. This area will be evaluated for Technical Risk only. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 8. 2)

4. Sub-Factor 3: Small Business Participation The Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be assessed in accordance with FAR 19.704 and must reflect the level of small business participation commitment specified in the SBPCD. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 8.3.1) The SBPCD is a separate document from the Small Business Subcontracting Plan required by FAR 19.7. The Government will evaluate the SBPCD as measured against Total Launch Service (Basic Launch Service plus Mission-Specific Non-Standard Services). Offerors must meet the Minimum Quantitative Requirement (MQR) level of small business participation, which is 4% for each assigned launch service. The SBPCD will be evaluated for complying with Attachment 5, paragraph 8.3, demonstrating an adequate approach to meet the small business participation MQR of 4%, to include base and all exercised options, and demonstrating adequate evidence of commitment to use small businesses. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 8.3.2) Evaluation of Past Performance Factor 4: Past Performance Each of the Offeror’s Past Performance efforts will be evaluated for recency, relevancy, and quality. The combined Past Performance evaluation results in one Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating in accordance with Table 9-2.

Offerors must receive a past performance rating of “Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence or Neutral Confidence” to be eligible for award.

Evaluation Process The Past Performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in providing launch services as well as contract execution. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to: the Past Performance Information Retrieval System, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System, Electronic Subcontract Reporting System, or other databases; interviews and questionnaires with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

Past Performance will be evaluated for the following areas:

1) Orbital Payload (NSS and non-NSS) Launch Experience (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 9.2) Number of successful launches to reference orbits and other orbits Demonstrated mission success

2) Launch Execution (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 9.3) Complex payload integration and execution of NSS class payloads Support to Government Mission Assurance Process Recency Evaluation An evaluation of the Past Performance Information (PPI) will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past 5 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. PPI that does not meet this definition will not be evaluated.

Relevancy Evaluation The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the past performance efforts relate to missions launched to NSS reference orbits. For each recent past performance effort reviewed, consideration will be given to the extent to which, the scope, magnitude, and complexity is similar to missions to NSS reference orbits. This will result in relevancy assessment ratings for each mission. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual contracts, the Government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed to be completed by the prime, subcontractor or teaming partner. PPI and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions in Table 9-1 when assessing recent, relevant efforts.

Table 9-1: Past Performance Relevancy Rating

Past Performance Quality Assessment The Government will assess the performance quality of recent and relevant efforts. The quality of the work performed will be assessed for performance and schedule. Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the evaluation will also consider the extent to which, the Offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as PPI that results in an unsatisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system (e.g., past performance questionnaires). For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the adverse information, mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in any sustained improvements.

Past Performance Confidence Assessment The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. The evaluation will result in one (1) confidence assessment rating.

In the case of Offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance. In this case, the Offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral”.

Table 9-2: Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

Evaluation of Price Factor 5: Price The Offeror’s pricing will be evaluated for Reasonableness and Unbalanced pricing. Proposals that contain unbalanced pricing are not awardable. The Offeror’s proposal will also be evaluated for (1) accuracy in calculating the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) and (2) compliance with the instructions for calculating the TEP. In the evaluation, the Government may use data, 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. The evaluation of options pricing will not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

Pricing that will be evaluated for Reasonableness and Unbalanced pricing include (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraphs 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3):

1) Basic launch service price by reference orbit, configuration, and mass-to-orbit by order year at “Requirement 1” and “Requirement 2” share ratios

2) Mission Prioritization/Acceleration by order year for 3, 6, 9, or 12 month acceleration

3) Mission Specific Non-standard Services by order year

4) Government Property Rental Equivalency

5) Launch Service Support (LSS) price by contract year

6) Quick Reaction and Anomaly Resolution and Special Studies composite hourly rates by contract year

7) Early Integration Studies (EIS) by composite hourly rates by contract year Reasonableness Reasonableness of an Offeror’s proposed price will be evaluated using one or more price analysis techniques, as identified in FAR 15.404-1. In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-3(a), data other than certified cost or pricing data may be required to support a determination of price reasonableness. If, after receipt of proposals, the PCO determines that there is insufficient data available to determine price reasonableness, the Offeror shall be required to submit additional data other than certified cost or pricing data.

Unbalanced Pricing The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed prices for unbalanced pricing in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Competitive Advantage From Use of Government Property If the Offeror proposes the use of government property, the rental equivalency cost of the government property will be incorporated into the TEP based on the unit acquisition cost of each item requested. As defined by FAR 45.1, the Government may assess a different unit acquisition cost of any government property stated by the Offeror if the Government’s evaluation supports another value.

Total Evaluated Price For source selection evaluation purposes only, the TEP will be determined by adding together the total launch service price values for each mission in the sample mission manifest as required in Attachment 5, Tables 10.4.1-1 and 10.4.1-2 along with the annual LSS prices, annual Quick Reaction and Anomaly Resolution and Special Studies prices, and annual EIS prices for the entire PoP. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 10.4) The best value determination will be made using “Requirement 1” share ratio pricing for the TEP. The next best value determination will be made among the remaining Offerors using the “Requirement 2” share ratio pricing for the TEP. (Reference Attachment 5, Paragraph 10.4)