13_Section_M_Evaluation_Criteria.docx

ATTACHMENT 13

SPACE AND MISSILE SYSTEMS CENTER/ENTERPRISE CORE LAUNCH (SMC/ECL)

SYSTEMS ENGINEERING & INTEGRATION-2 (SE&I-2)

EVALUATION CRITERIA (EC)

FA8811-20-R-0003

10 October 2019

Department of the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center Enterprise Core Launch Los Angeles AFB, California 90245-2808

Revision History

Table of Contents

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is a best value full tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 15.3, Source Selection, and FAR 15.101-1, Tradeoff Process, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) subpart 215.3, the DoD Source Selection Procedures (March 31, 2016), the Air Force FAR Supplement (AFFARS) subpart 5315.3, and the Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically.

The Government intends to make a single award by selecting the Offeror, who is determined to be responsible in accordance with FAR 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, and its supplements , whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is evaluated, based on the evaluation Factors and Subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on a detailed assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria.

This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation Factors, and the SSA reasonably determines that the technical approach/technical risk of the higher price offer outweighs the cost/price difference.

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

1.2 Competitive Range

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint.

The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary at any point during the source selection. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306.

If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be 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 rated proposals.

Competitive range determinations may occur more than once. Offerors excluded from the competitive range may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

1.3 Discussions

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

If the Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

1.4 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. The judgment of such "correction potential," and whether the offerors are offered the opportunity to modify their proposal, is within the sole discretion of the Government. By correction potential the Government means it will be evaluating each deficiency for the ability for the deficiency to be remedied and the time requirement necessary to complete that remedial action. This determination will be inherent to each subfactor evaluation and will not specifically be recorded unless the government deems it necessary. If an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government’s requirements and is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.5 Rejection of Unrealistic or Unreasonable Offers

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic/unreasonable in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unreasonably high or unrealistically low in cost, such that the proposal is determined to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

1.6 Responsibility

No award shall be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined responsible, an Offeror shall meet the general standards described in FAR 9.104-1, have an acceptable Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Plan and professional employee compensation plan.

1.6.1 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)

The Government will review the Offeror’s OCI Plan along with a completed OCI Mitigation Plan Checklist to ensure compliance with AFFARS 5352.209-9000 ALT II, III, IV & VI (Oct 2010) for areas of potential conflicts. As discussed in Section L, the resolution of OCI issues are treated as part of the Contracting Officer's contractor responsibility determination. An Offeror’s actual or potential OCI concerns must be avoided, mitigated, or neutralized before that Offeror may receive an award.

1.6.2 Professional Employee Compensation Plan

The Professional Employee Compensation Plan submitted in response to the solicitation will be evaluated in accordance with FAR clause 52.222-46. The Compensation Plan will be relied upon as one of the elements in determining if an Offeror is responsible and subsequently Factor in to the determination of eligibility for award.

1.6.3 Pre-Award Survey

The Government may conduct a pre-award survey as part of this source selection. Pre-award survey results, if conducted, will be evaluated to determine each Offeror's capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The Offeror shall be responsive to DCMA requests for all pre-award surveys (e.g., including financial capability) as required by FAR 9.104-1(a).

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

A contract will be awarded to the Offeror proposing a solution evaluated, based on the evaluation Factors and Subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government. The following Factors and Subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

2.2 Relative Importance

Offerors that are rated acceptable under Factor 4 Small Business Participation will then be considered for the tradeoff analysis as described immediately below.

Relative importance of each Factor and Subfactor are as follows:

· Factor 1, Technical, is the most important factor and is significantly more important than Factor 2, Past Performance.

· Within the Technical Factor, Subfactor 1.1 is more important than 1.2.

· Within Technical Subfactor 1.2, Element 1 more important than Element 2. Elements 1 and 2 are significantly more important than Elements 3 and 4. Element 3 is more important than Element 4.

· Factor 2, Past Performance, is more important than the Factor 3, Cost/Price.

· Factor 3, Cost/Price is the least important of all Factors.

· Factor 1 is the most important evaluation factor. Factor 2 and Factor 3, when combined are less important than Factor 1.

2.3 Factor 1: Technical

The technical evaluation will not result an overall composite Technical/Risk rating for Factor 1, Technical. There will be five separate Technical/Risk ratings for Factor 1, Technical (one rating for Subfactor 1.1 and four ratings for each of the elements in Subfactor 1.2). The Government will consider strengths Offerors note in their proposals and the Government will also consider aspects of the Offeror’s technical proposal that may be advantageous to the Government as strengths. The Government intends to incorporate all evaluated strengths into the resulting contract, regardless of whether the Government has conducted discussions on any or all strengths. These strengths can include performance or capability exceedances above mandatory threshold (minimum) requirements.

Technical Factor: The term “Technical” as used herein and throughout the document, refers to non-cost Factors and Subfactors other than Past Performance and Small Business Participation.

2.3.1 Technical/Risk Rating Evaluation

The combined Technical/Risk Rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the Government’s Technical requirements within each Subfactor and the risk of unsuccessful performance. Each Technical Subfactor will receive one of the ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated March 31 2016, and listed in Table 1 – Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method.

The combined Technical/Risk Rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in the Offeror’s proposal.

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Table 2. Risk Definitions

Table 3: Relevant Definitions

2.3.2 Technical Subfactor 1.2 – Contractor’s Staffing Proposal

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates an understanding of the manning requirements and staffs appropriately. This Subfactor will be evaluated using Table 1. Strengths may be assigned to the cumulative (or specific) additional (relevant) education, experience, certifications, or demonstrated benefits to the government. The government intends to attach the successful offeror’s staffing matrix, or future Government approved updates to the staffing matrix, to the contract as Attachment 8

If the offeror’s proposed staffing matrix does not propose minimum staffing, qualifications, certifications, and expertise listed in the Government estimate (attachment L-1 to ITO) for identified Key Personnel (Column F) or Minimum staffing level (column G) the Government will consider the proposal unacceptable and may not be considered for further evaluation.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s staffing approach to minimize the risk to performance during transition and normal operations. Specifically, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed staffing matrix and strategic initiatives as described in the staffing plan to retain proposed workforce.

2.3.3 Technical Subfactor 1.2 – Launch Expertise

2.3.3.1 Element 1 - Risk Identification and Mitigation for Launch Systems

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to risk identification and mitigation during NSSL’s transition to new launch systems, for its soundness and comprehensiveness.

For purposes of this evaluation element:

The Government defines “soundness” as the degree to which it evidences realistic and experience-based methodology.

The Government defines “comprehensiveness” as the degree to which it evidences understanding of risk management process in support of the NSSL program, and demonstrate ability to identify executable mitigation strategies to reduce impacts of risks to NSSL program.

2.3.3.2 Element 2 - Launch Enterprise Process/Products for Launch Systems Engineering and Integration

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to analyzing and facilitating the system engineering functions of the entire Government Launch Enterprise for its soundness and comprehensiveness.

For purposes of this evaluation element:

The Government defines “soundness” as the degree to which it evidences realistic and experience-based methodology.

The Government defines “comprehensiveness” as the degree to which it evidences understanding of systems engineering/integration process for the Launch Enterprise (a system of systems), including all tech processes and tech management processes.

2.3.3.3 Element 3 - Government and Launch Service Provider Interaction/Integration

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to facilitate the interaction of process and data between Launch Service Provider and Government Mission Assurance architecture/framework, for its soundness and comprehensiveness.

For purposes of this evaluation element:

The Government defines “soundness” as the degree to which it evidences realistic and experience-based methodology.

The Government defines “comprehensiveness” as the degree to which it evidences timelines and descriptions of procedures, processes, plans and rationale.

2.3.3.4 Element 4 - Quality & Risk Assessment

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach for its soundness and comprehensiveness in analyzing, accessing, utilizing, and reporting to Government NSSL Launch Service Providers’ (LSP) Quality Management Systems (QMS) and risk management systems in support of Mission Assurance (PWS Appendix B).

For purposes of this evaluation element:

The Government defines “soundness” as the degree to which it evidences realistic and experience-based methodology.

The Government defines “comprehensiveness” as the degree to which it evidences timelines and descriptions of procedures, processes , plans and rationale for all the subject matters requested in the ITO, specifically: launch/landing site(s) ground systems/infrastructure, launch vehicle lifecycles, launch/space vehicle integration, and processes/tools for analyzing/accessing/utilizing LSP QMS and risk management programs.

2.4 Factor 2: Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The Past Performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying services that meet the contract’s requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Offeror’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each Offeror.

2.4.1 Ratings. The Past Performance Factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessment described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method, excerpted below in Table 5.

TABLE 5- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS RATING METHOD

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..

2.4.2. Evaluation Process. The Past Performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant performance record and the quality of this performance as described below. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance Factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical Subfactors and Cost/Price Factor taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in M002 2.2. 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 (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials.

2.4.2.1 Recency. An evaluation of the past performance information 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 five years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated further.

2.4.2.2 Relevance. The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the services performed under those contract citations relate to the Performance-based Work Statement specifically regarding the following:

1. Launch Process and Operations Experience

2. Small, Medium, or Heavy Rockets Experience

3. Mission Integration Experience

4. Ground Systems Experience

5. Propulsion Experience

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 past performance citations, the Government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor, or teaming partner. The past performance information forms and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance.

The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts.

TABLE 6 PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATING

2.4.2.3 Quality of Services. The Government will consider information from customers on how well the Offeror performed on past contract citations. For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the quality of the services provided and the work performed in relation to the PWS requirement will be assessed. Pursuant to FAR 15.304(c)(3)(ii) and DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the past performance assessment 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 and/or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

The quality of services performance assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse 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.

The Government will use the following Past Performance quality ratings when assessing that quality component of Past Performance.

Table 7 Past Performance Quality Ratings

OR

The Contractor’s performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective action taken by the contractor were highly effective.

OR

The Contractual performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective.

OR

The Contractual performance contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor appear or were satisfactory.

OR

The contractual performance reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the Contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

OR

The contractual performance contains serious problems for which the contractor corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

(3) Assigning Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. The Past Performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevance and quality of services assessments. Offerors will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment rating at the Factor level (see Table 5 above). Although the Past Performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Performance Work Statement, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the Factor level and represents an overall evaluation of Offeror’s performance. 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 a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance Factor.

More recent or relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment rating than less recent effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "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.

2.5 Factor 3: Cost/Price

2.5.1 Price Evaluation.

The Offeror’s Total Proposed Price (TPP) will be evaluated for reasonableness, realism, and unbalanced pricing. In the evaluation, the Government may use data external to the Offeror’s proposal in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. For all Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) types, the evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The Government-calculated Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be presented to the Source Selection Authority for the best value tradeoff decision.

2.5.2 Total Evaluated Price

The Government will calculate a TEP as shown below:

Table 8 Total Evaluated Price

TEP

Summation of above totals

2.5.2.1 Fixed Fee and Performance Incentive

The total fixed fee shall not exceed 3% of the total estimated cost excluding the cost of money for all CPFF CLINs. In addition to the fixed fee, no more than 7% of the total estimated cost (excluding cost of money) of all CPFF CLINs shall be used to create the objective performance incentive pool (OPIP) outlined in Section J, Attachment 4 of the model contract. The OPIP is captured in the Model Contract CLIN Series XX08.

2.5.3 Evaluation Area Details

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

2.5.3.1 Reasonableness

The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for reasonableness, where reasonableness will be an assessment of whether the price is too high. In conducting the reasonableness analysis, the Government will use one or more analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1. A determination of unreasonableness will render the proposal unawardable. In addition, proposals that have been assessed to be technically unacceptable are ineligible for award, and as a result, a reasonableness determination will not be made for technically unacceptable, unawardable proposals.

2.5.3.2 Realism

Cost realism analysis 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. (FAR 15.404-1(d)(1)). The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for cost realism; cost realism analysis shall be performed on cost-reimbursement CLINs to determine the probable cost of performance for each Offeror. (FAR 15.404-1(d)(2).

The Offeror’s proposed costs as provided in the Cost/Price Volume will be evaluated via a cost analysis approach. This process involves the Government’s review and evaluation of specific cost elements of the Offeror’s cost/price. Any proposed cost element may be adjusted based upon the Government analysis of each proposed cost element. The cost analysis will consider the Offeror’s proposed approach. Cost adjustments will consider weaknesses in the technical proposal that impact the costs. Cost adjustments will also consider missing costs that will likely be incurred for the contract with the proposed solution. Cost adjustments will consider any Offeror-initiated unsubstantiated decrements to historical hours/costs. The cost adjustments will result in the Government’s Most Probable Cost (MPC) that will be incorporated into the TEP calculation for best value consideration. The realism assessment will focus on whether the proposed price is too low. Therefore, all cost adjustments will be upward; there will not be any downward adjustments.

No MPC adjustment will be made for deficiencies; however, deficiencies may render your proposal unrealistic. The Offeror’s proposal must be clear and convincing in demonstrating that the costs in the Offeror’s proposal are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the Offeror’s technical proposal (FAR 15.404-1(d)). Over-proposing of unwanted tasks and associated costs will NOT result in a probable cost adjustment but may result in an unreasonableness determination. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of realism poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.5.3.3 Unbalanced Pricing (Applies to all contract line items) The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for the presence of unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, 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.

2.5.3.4 Total Proposed Price (TPP)

The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for accuracy in calculating the proposed Total Proposed Price (TPP) and for compliance with the instructions for calculating the proposed Total Proposed Price.

2.5.3.5 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The Government will adjust the TPP to incorporate the Government’s Most Probable Cost (developed under paragraph 2.5.2) resulting in the government-calculated TEP. The TEP will be used by the Source Selection Authority in the best value decision process.

2.5.3.6 Insufficient details to support the determination of reasonableness, realism, or non-presence 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.

2.5.3.7 Data in Volume VI (Model Contract) will be compared to the CLIN amounts and Rate Schedules in the Cost/Price Volume to ensure that the prices in the Cost/Price Volume flow to the CLINs in a consistent and accurate manner. If there is an inconsistency, the values in the Model Contract will take precedent and be used in the TEP calculation.

2.6 Factor 4: Small Business Participation

The Offeror demonstrates a small business participation percentage of 25% or more in the Small Business Percentage Calculation spreadsheet as part of Section J Attachment 11 Small Business Participation Commitment Document. This Subfactor will be rated on an acceptable or unacceptable scale as described below in Table 4.

Table 4 Small Business Rating Method

Small Business objectives are defined as: (1) Submission of an acceptable small business subcontracting plan, if required; (2) Submission of a Small Business Participation Commitment Document that proposes at least 25% based on total contract value; and (3) Submission of evidence of enforceable commitments that cover the entirety of the required 25% or more small business participation.

image3.PNG image1.emf image2.emf