24Jan20_TrackedChanges_07_Section M Evaluation Criteria.pdf

ATTACHMENT 13 5

SPACE AND MISSILE SYSTEMS CENTER/ LAUNCH 7

ENTERPRISE (SMC/ECL) 8

SYSTEMS ENGINEERING & INTEGRATION-2 (SE&I-2) 9

EVALUATION CRITERIA (EC) 10

FA8811-20-R-0003 13

6 December 2019 24 January 2020 16

Department of the Air Force 20

Space and Missile Systems Center 21

Launch Enterprise 22

Los Angeles AFB, California 90245-2808 23

Revision History 25

Revision Description Date

1.0 Draft RFP Release 10 October 2019

1.1 2nd Draft RFP Release 22 November 2019

1.2 RFP Amendment 2 24 January 2020

Table of Contents 30 M001 SOURCE SELECTION ................................................................................................. 4 32

1.1 Basis for Contract Award ................................................................................................. 4 33

1.2 Competitive Range ........................................................................................................... 4 34

1.3 Discussions ....................................................................................................................... 5 35

1.4 Correction Potential of Proposals ..................................................................................... 5 36

1.5 Rejection of Unrealistic or Unreasonable Offers ............................................................. 5 37

1.6 Responsibility ................................................................................................................... 5 38

1.6.1 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) ................................................................. 5 39

1.6.2 Professional Employee Compensation Plan ............................................................. 5 40

1.6.3 Pre-Award Survey .......................................................................................................... 6 41

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS ........................................................................................... 6 42

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors...................................................................................... 6 43

2.2 Relative Importance ......................................................................................................... 8 44

2.3 Factor 1: Technical ........................................................................................................... 8 45

2.3.1 Technical/Risk Rating Evaluation ............................................................................ 8 46

2.3.2 Technical Subfactor 1.1 – Staffing Approach........................................................ 11 47

2.3.3 Technical Subfactor 1.2 – Launch Expertise .......................................................... 11 48

2.4 Factor 2: Past Performance ............................................................................................ 13 49

2.5 Factor 3: Cost/Price ........................................................................................................ 17 50

2.5.1 Price Evaluation. .......................................................................................................... 17 51

2.5.2 Total Evaluated Price ................................................................................................... 17 52

2.5.2.1 Fixed Fee and Performance Incentive....................................................................... 21 53

2.5.3 Evaluation Area Details ............................................................................................... 21 54

2.5.3.1 Reasonableness ............................................................................................................. 21 55

2.5.3.2 Realism ................................................................................................................... 22 56

2.5.3.3 Unbalanced Pricing (Applies to all contract line items) ............................................... 22 57

2.5.3.4 Total Proposed Price (TPP) .................................................................................... 22 58

2.5.3.5 Total Evaluated Price (TEP) ................................................................................... 22 59 2.5.3.6........................................................................................................................................ 22 60 2.5.3.7........................................................................................................................................ 23 61

2.6 Factor 4: Small Business Participation........................................................................... 23 62

M001 SOURCE SELECTION 64

1.1 Basis for Contract Award 66

This is a best value full tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition 68 Regulation (FAR) subpart 15.3, Source Selection, and FAR 15.101-1, Tradeoff Process, as supplemented 69 by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) subpart 215.3, the DoD Source 70 Selection Procedures (March 31, 2016), the Air Force FAR Supplement (AFFARS) subpart 5315.3, and 71 the Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically. 72 The Government intends to make a single award by selecting the Offeror, who is determined to be 74 responsible in accordance with FAR 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, and its supplements , 75 whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, 76 representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is 77 evaluated, based on the evaluation Factors and Subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government. 78 The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on a detailed assessment of 79 proposals against all source selection criteria. 80 This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with 82 the evaluation Factors, and the SSA reasonably determines a higher price is justified by the beneficial 83 positive aspects of the proposal in the non-cost factors. that the technical approach/technical risk of the 84 higher price offer outweighs the cost/price difference. 85 While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, 87 the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit 88 throughout the entire process. 89

1.2 Competitive Range 91

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors 93 (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should 94 contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. 95 The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them 97 to be necessary at any point during the source selection. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance 98 with FAR 15.306. 99 If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the 101 competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting 102 Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit 103 an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. 104 Competitive range determinations may occur more than once. Offerors excluded from the competitive 106 range may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505. 107

1.3 Discussions 111

The Government anticipates entering into discussions after it makes a competitive range determination of 113 the most highly rated proposals based on the rating of each proposal against all evaluation criteria (see 114 FAR 15.306(c)). If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the 115 Government to hold discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal 116 Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. 117 If the Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes 119 or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the 120 Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award. 121

1.4 Correction Potential of Proposals 123

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. 125 The judgment of such "correction potential," and whether the Offerors are offered the opportunity to 126 modify their proposal, is within the sole discretion of the Government. By correction potential the 127 Government means it will be evaluating each deficiency for the ability for the deficiency to be remedied 128 and the time requirement necessary to complete that remedial action. This determination will be inherent 129 to each subfactor evaluation and will not specifically be recorded unless the Government deems it 130 necessary. If an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government’s requirements and is not 131 considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range. 132

1.5 Rejection of Unrealistic or Unreasonable Offers 134

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic/unreasonable in terms of 136 program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unreasonably high or unrealistically 137 low in cost, such that the proposal is determined to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to 138 comprehend the complexity and risks of the program. 139

1.6 Responsibility 141

No award shall be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of 143 responsibility. To be determined responsible, an Offeror shall meet the general standards described in 144 FAR 9.104-1, have an acceptable Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Plan and professional 145 employee compensation plan. 146

1.6.1 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) 148

The Government will review the Offeror’s OCI Plan along with a completed OCI Mitigation Plan 150 Checklist to ensure compliance with AFFARS 5352.209-9000 ALT II, III, IV & VI (Oct 2010) for areas 151 of potential conflicts. As discussed in Section L, the resolution of OCI issues are treated as part of the 152 Contracting Officer's contractor responsibility determination. An Offeror’s actual or potential OCI 153 concerns must be avoided, mitigated, or neutralized before that Offeror may receive an award. 154

1.6.2 Professional Employee Compensation Plan 156

The Professional Employee Compensation Plan submitted in response to the solicitation will be evaluated 158 in accordance with FAR clause 52.222-46. The Compensation Plan will be relied upon as one of the 159 elements in determining if an Offeror is responsible and subsequently Factor in to the determination of 160 eligibility for award. 161

1.6.3 Pre-Award Survey 163

The Government may conduct a pre-award survey as part of this source selection. Pre-award survey 165 results, if conducted, will be evaluated to determine each Offeror's capability to meet the requirements of 166 the solicitation. 167 The Offeror shall be responsive to DCMA requests for all pre-award surveys (e.g., including financial 169 capability) as required by FAR 9.104-1(a). 170

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS 172

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors 174

A contract will be awarded to the Offeror proposing a solution evaluated, based on the evaluation Factors 176 and Subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government. The following Factors and Subfactors will 177 be used to evaluate each proposal: 178

Bl ue

Pu rp le

Gr ee n Ye llo w

Re d

O ut st an di ng

Go od

Ac ce pt ab le M ar gi na l

Un ac ce pt ab le le

Gr ee n Ye llo w

Re d

O ut st an di ng

Go od

Ac ce pt ab le M ar gi na l

Un ac ce pt ab le le

Gr ee n Ye llo w

Re d

O ut st an di ng

Go od

Ac ce pt ab le M ar gi na l

Un ac ce pt ab le le

Gr ee n Ye llo w

Re d

O ut st an di ng

Go od

Ac ce pt ab le M ar gi na l

Un ac ce pt ab le le

Gr ee n Ye llo w

Re d

O ut st an di ng

Go od

Ac ce pt ab le M ar gi na l

Un ac ce pt ab le

Su m m ar iz e an y pr es en ce o f u nb al en ce d pr ic in g

Fa ct or

Co st /P ric e

Fa ct or

Sm al l

Bu si ne ss

Pa rt ic ip at io n

Ac ce pt ab le /U na cc ep ta bl e

Go ve rn m en t's

M os t P ro ba bl e Co st (M

PC

) A dj us tm en t To ta l E va lu at ed

P ric e (T

EP

Re as on ab le Re al is m (C os t C

LI

N s O nl

y) Un ba la nc ed

P ric in g

Y/

N /T

BD

/ N

/A Su m m ar iz e th e M

PC

A dj us tm en ts

Sa tis fa ct or y

Co nf id en ce N eu tr al C on fid en ce

Li m ite d

Co nf id en ce N o Co nf id en ce

Fa ct or

: P as t Pe rf or m an ce

To ta l P ro po se d Pr ic e

(T

PP

Su bf ac to r:

1.

La un ch

E xp er tis e El em en t 3 Te ch ni ca l/

Ri sk

R at in g

Su bf ac to r:

1.

La un ch

E xp er tis e El em en t 4 Te ch ni ca l/

Ri sk

R at in g

Pe rf or m an ce

C on fid en ce A ss es sm en t Su bs ta nt ia l C on fid en ce

Su bf ac to r:

1.

La un ch

E xp er tis e El em en t 1 Te ch ni ca l/

Ri sk

R at in g

Te ch ni ca l/ Ri sk R at in g Su bf ac to r 1

.1 : S ta ff in g

Ap pr oa ch

Fa ct or

Te ch ni ca l

Su bf ac to r:

1.

La un ch

E xp er tis e El em en t 2 Te ch ni ca l/

Ri sk

R at in g

2.2 Relative Importance 182

Offerors that are rated acceptable under Factor 4 Small Business Participation will then be considered for 184 the tradeoff analysis as described immediately below. 185 Relative importance of each Factor and Subfactor are as follows: 187

• Factor 1, Technical, is the most important factor and is significantly more important than Factor 188 2, Past Performance. 189 o Within the Technical Factor, Subfactor 1.1 is more important than 1.2. 190 Within Technical Subfactor 1.2, Element 1 more important than Element 2. 191

Elements 1 and 2 are significantly more important than Elements 3 and 4. 192 Element 3 is more important than Element 4. 193

• Factor 2, Past Performance, is more important than the Factor 3, Cost/Price. 194

• Factor 3, Cost/Price is the least important of all Factors. 195

• Factor 1 is the most important evaluation factor. Factor 2 and Factor 3, when combined are less 196 important than Factor 1. 197

2.3 Factor 1: Technical 199

The technical evaluation will not result in an overall composite Technical/Risk rating for Factor 1, 201 Technical. There will be five separate Technical/Risk ratings for Factor 1, Technical (one rating for 202 Subfactor 1.1 and four ratings for each of the elements in Subfactor 1.2). The Government will consider 203 strengths Offerors note in their proposals and the Government will also consider aspects of the Offeror’s 204 technical proposal that may be advantageous to the Government as strengths. The Government intends to 205 incorporate all evaluated strengths into the resulting contract, regardless of whether the Government has 206 conducted discussions on any or all strengths. These strengths can include performance or capability 207 exceedances above mandatory threshold (minimum) requirements. 208 Technical Factor: The term “Technical” as used herein and throughout the document, refers to non-cost 210 Factors and Subfactors other than Past Performance and Small Business Participation. 211

2.3.1 Technical/Risk Rating Evaluation 213

The combined Technical/Risk Rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the Government’s 215 Technical requirements within each Subfactor or element and the risk of unsuccessful performance. Each 216 Technical Subfactor will receive one of the ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, 217 dated March 31, 2016, and listed in Table 1 – Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method. 218 The combined Technical/Risk Rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, 220 weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in the Offeror’s proposal. 221

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings 230

Table 2. Risk Definitions Rating Description Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which haveHas 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 mayCan potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which Iis 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.

Table 3: Relevant Definitions Strength 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. See DoD Source Selection Procedures.

Weakness Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness

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

FAR 15.001.

Deficiency 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. See FAR 15.001.

2.3.2 Technical Subfactor 1.1 – Staffing Approach 243

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates an understanding of the 245 manning requirements and staffs appropriately. This Subfactor will be evaluated using Table 1. Strengths 246 may be assigned to the cumulative (or specific) additional (relevant) education, experience, certifications, 247 or any other area that demonstrates benefit to the Government. The Government intends to attach the 248 successful Offeror’s staffing matrix, or future Government approved updates to the staffing matrix, to the 249 contract as Attachment 8. 250 If the Offeror’s proposed staffing matrix does not propose minimum staffing levels, qualifications, 252 certifications, and expertise listed in the Government estimate (attachment L-3 to ITO) for identified Key 253 Personnel (Column F) or Minimum staffing level (column G) the Government will consider the proposal 254 unacceptable and may not be considered for further evaluation. 255 The Government will allow Offerors to propose up to a maximum of 10 developmental positions, meaning 257 zero years of experience (e.g. new college graduates), within LAAFB. These developmental positions 258 shall be spread across position IDs starting with LEA, LEM, LEF, LEG, and LEE for any level I and level 259 II labor categories. The Offeror should uniquely identify these 10 developmental positions in their 260 proposal, so the Government can exclude them from the risk analysis. 261 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s staffing approach to minimize the risk to performance 263 during transition and normal operations. Specifically, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s 264 proposed staffing matrix and strategic initiatives as described in the staffing plan to retain proposed 265 workforce. 266

2.3.3 Technical Subfactor 1.2 – Launch Expertise 268

2.3.3.1 Element 1 - Risk Identification and Mitigation for Launch Systems 270 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to risk identification and mitigation during NSSL’s 272 transition to new launch systems, for its soundness and comprehensiveness. 273 For purposes of this evaluation element: 275

The Government defines “soundness” as the degree to which it evidences realistic and experience-based 277 methodology. 278 The Government defines “comprehensiveness” as the degree to which it evidences understanding of risk 280 management process in support of the NSSL program, and demonstrate ability to identify executable 281 mitigation strategies to reduce impacts of risks to NSSL program. 282

2.3.3.2 Element 2 - Launch Enterprise Process/Products for Launch Systems Engineering and 284 Integration 285 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to analyzing and facilitating the system engineering 287 functions of the entire Government Launch Enterprise for its soundness and comprehensiveness. 288 For purposes of this evaluation element: 290 The Government defines “soundness” as the degree to which it evidences realistic and experience-based 292 methodology. 293 The Government defines “comprehensiveness” as the degree to which it evidences understanding of 295 systems engineering/integration process for the Launch Enterprise (a system of systems), including all 296 tech processes and tech management processes. 297

2.3.3.3 Element 3 - Government and Launch Service Provider Interaction/Integration 299 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to facilitate the interaction of process and data 301 between Launch Service Provider and Government Mission Assurance architecture/framework, for its 302 soundness and comprehensiveness. 303 For purposes of this evaluation element: 305 The Government defines “soundness” as the degree to which it evidences realistic and experience-based 307 methodology. 308 The Government defines “comprehensiveness” as the degree to which it evidences timelines and 310 descriptions of procedures, processes, plans and rationale. 311

2.3.3.4 Element 4 - Quality & Risk Assessment 313

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach for its soundness and comprehensiveness in 315 analyzing, assessing, utilizing, and reporting to Government NSSL Launch Service Providers’ (LSP) 316 Quality Management Systems (QMS) and risk management systems in support of Independent 317 Government Mission Assurance (as defined in PWS Appendix B). 318 For purposes of this evaluation element: 320 The Government defines “soundness” as the degree to which it evidences realistic and experience-based 322 methodology. 323

The Government defines “comprehensiveness” as the degree to which it evidences timelines and 325 descriptions of procedures, processes , plans and rationale for all the subject matters requested in the 326 ITO, specifically: launch/landing site(s) ground systems/infrastructure, launch vehicle lifecycles, 327 launch/space vehicle integration, and processes/tools for analyzing/assessing/utilizing LSP QMS and 328 risk management programs. 329

2.4 Factor 2: Past Performance 331

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the 333 solicitation requirements. The Past Performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent 334 and relevant record of performance in supplying services that meet the contract’s requirements. In 335 accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the 336 information, context of the data, and general trends in the Offeror’s performance shall be considered. 337 These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each Offeror. 338

2.4.1 Ratings. The Past Performance Factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessment 340 described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method, 341 excerpted below in Table 5. 342

2.4.2. Evaluation Process. The Past Performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated 346 recent and relevant performance record and the quality of this performance as described below. 347 Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance Factor level after evaluating aspects 348 of the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical 349 Subfactors and Cost/Price Factor taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in 350

TABLE 5- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS RATING METHOD

Adjectival 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. 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..

M002 2.2. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use 351 both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information 352 obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past 353 Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity 354 Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; 355 the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and interviews with Program Managers, 356 Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials. 357

2.4.2.1 Recency. An evaluation of the past performance information will be made to determine if 359 it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during 360 the past five years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance 361 information that fails this condition will not be evaluated further. 362

2.4.2.2 Relevance. The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance 364 information obtained to determine whether the services performed under those contract 365 citations relate to the Performance-based Work Statement specifically regarding the 366 following: 367

1. Experience involving NSSL Launches, or Experience involving Launch Vehicles used in 369

NSSL launches or similar category with other federal agencies such as NASA, NOAA, 370 NSA etc. 371

2. Experience involving Launch Vehicles used in NSSL launches or similar category with 372 commercial launches, or Experience involving Launch Vehicles used in orbital launches 373 other than those described in 1, above. 374

3. Experience involving ballistic missile launches, Launch Process and Operations 375 Experience, Mission Integration Experience, Experience involving Ground Systems, 376 Experience involving other than launch vehicle Propulsion systems comparable to launch 377 propulsion. 378

A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the 380 aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical 381 subcontractor(s). In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance 382 citations, the Government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed 383 by the prime, subcontractor, or teaming partner. The past performance information forms and 384 information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. 385 The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts. 387

TABLE 6 PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATING 390

Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant Performing in areas on missions listed in section 2.4.2.2 (1) that involved essentially the same scope, magnitude, and complexity as this solicitation requires

Relevant Performing in areas on missions listed in section 2.4.2.2 (2) that involved essentially the same scope, magnitude, and complexity as this solicitation requires

Somewhat Relevant Performing in areas on missions listed in section 2.4.2.2 (3) that involved essentially the same scope, magnitude, and complexity as this solicitation requires

Not Relevant Performing in areas on missions not listed in section 2.4.2.2 or missions do not involved essentially the same scope, magnitude, and complexity as this solicitation requires

2.4.2.3 Quality of Services. The Government will consider information from customers on how 393 well the Offeror performed on past contract citations. For each recent, relevant past 394 performance citation reviewed, the quality of the services provided and the work performed 395 in relation to the PWS requirement will be assessed. Pursuant to FAR 15.304(c)(3)(ii) and 396 DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the past performance assessment will also consider the extent to 397 which the Offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 398 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and/or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business 399 Subcontracting Plan. 400 The quality of services performance assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. 402 Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory 403 rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources 404 without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will 405 consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the 406 effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process 407 changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in 408 performance have been demonstrated. 409 The Government will use the following Past Performance quality ratings when assessing 411 that quality component of Past Performance. 412

Table 7 Past Performance Quality Ratings

Rating Description Exceptional The Contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit.

OR

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

Very Good The Contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit.

OR

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

Satisfactory The Contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements.

OR

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

Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements.

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.

Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner.

OR

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

N/A Not Applicable - unable to provide a score

(3) Assigning Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. The Past Performance confidence 416 assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevance and quality of services 417 assessments. Offerors will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment rating at the Factor 418 level (see Table 5 above). Although the Past Performance evaluation focuses on performance that is 419 relevant to the Performance Work Statement, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is 420 made at the Factor level and represents an overall evaluation of Offeror’s performance. Offerors without 421 a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse 422 that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated 423 favorably or unfavorably on Past Performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating 424 for the Past Performance Factor. 425 More recent or relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence 427 Assessment rating than less recent effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered 428 more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant 429 past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a 430 less relevant record of favorable performance. 431

2.5 Factor 3: Cost/Price 434

2.5.1 Price Evaluation. 436

The Offeror’s Total Proposed Price (TPP) will be evaluated for reasonableness, realism, and unbalanced 438 pricing. In the evaluation, the Government may use data external to the Offeror’s proposal in accordance 439 with FAR 15.404-1. For all Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) types, the evaluation of options will not 440 obligate the Government to exercise such options. The Government-calculated Total Evaluated Price 441 (TEP) will be presented to the Source Selection Authority for the best value tradeoff decision. 442

2.5.2 Total Evaluated Price 444

The Government will calculate a TEP as shown below: 446 Table 8 Total Evaluated Price 448

CLIN Title Contract Type Cost $

Proposed Fixed Fee (NTE 3%) or Performance

Incentive (NTE 7%) $

Total CLIN Amount

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (D + E )

0100 LAAFB (Procurement Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0101 CCAFS/45th SW (Procurement Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0102 CCAFS/45th SW (O&M Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0103 VAFB/ 30th SW (Procurement Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0104 VAFB/ 30th SW (O&M Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0105 LAAFB (RDT&E Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0106 Other Direct Costs CR $500,000 N/A $500,000

0107 Data NSP N/A N/A N/A

0108 Performance Incentive (Attachment 4) FFP N/A Proposed Incentive $ (E)

0200 LAAFB (Procurement Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0201 CCAFS/45th SW (Procurement Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0202 CCAFS/45th SW (O&M Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0203 VAFB/ 30th SW (Procurement Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0204 VAFB/ 30th SW (O&M Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0205 LAAFB (RDT&E Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0206 Other Direct Costs CR $500,000 N/A $500,000

0207 Data NSP N/A N/A N/A

0208 Performance Incentive (Attachment 4) FFP N/A Proposed Incentive $ (E)

0300 LAAFB (Procurement Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0301 CCAFS/45th SW (Procurement Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0302 CCAFS/45th SW (O&M Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0303 VAFB/ 30th SW (Procurement Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0304 VAFB/ 30th SW (O&M Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0305 LAAFB (RDT&E Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0306 Other Direct Costs CR $500,000 N/A $500,000

0307 Data NSP N/A N/A N/A

0308 Performance Incentive (Attachment 4) FFP N/A Proposed Incentive $ (E)

0400 LAAFB (Procurement Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0401 CCAFS/45th SW (Procurement Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0402 CCAFS/45th SW (O&M Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0403 VAFB/ 30th SW (Procurement Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0404 VAFB/ 30th SW (O&M Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0405 LAAFB (RDT&E Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0406 Other Direct Costs CR $500,000 N/A $500,000

0407 Data NSP N/A N/A N/A

0408 Performance Incentive (Attachment 4) FFP N/A Proposed Incentive $ (E)

0500 LAAFB (Procurement Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0501 CCAFS/45th SW (Procurement Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0502 CCAFS/45th SW (O&M Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0503 VAFB/ 30th SW (Procurement Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0504 VAFB/ 30th SW (O&M Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0505 LAAFB (RDT&E Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0506 Other Direct Costs CR $500,000 N/A $500,000

0507 Data NSP N/A N/A N/A

0508 Performance Incentive (Attachment 4) FFP N/A Proposed Incentive $ (E)

0600 LAAFB (Procurement Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0601 CCAFS/45th SW (Procurement Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0602 CCAFS/45th SW (O&M Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0603 VAFB/ 30th SW (Procurement Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0604 VAFB/ 30th SW (O&M Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0605 LAAFB (RDT&E Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0606 Other Direct Costs CR $500,000 N/A $500,000

0607 Data NSP N/A N/A N/A

0608 Performance Incentive (Attachment 4) FFP N/A Proposed Incentive $ (E)

0700 LAAFB (Procurement Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0701 CCAFS/45th SW (Procurement Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0702 CCAFS/45th SW (O&M Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0703 VAFB/ 30th SW (Procurement Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0704 VAFB/ 30th SW (O&M Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0705 LAAFB (RDT&E Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0706 Other Direct Costs CR $500,000 N/A $500,000

0707 Data NSP N/A N/A N/A

0708 Performance Incentive (Attachment 4) FFP N/A Proposed Incentive $ (E)

0800 LAAFB (Procurement Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0801 CCAFS/45th SW (Procurement Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0802 CCAFS/45th SW (O&M Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0803 VAFB/ 30th SW (Procurement Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0804 VAFB/ 30th SW (O&M Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0805 LAAFB (RDT&E Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0806 Other Direct Costs CR $500,000 N/A $500,000

0807 Data NSP N/A N/A N/A

0808 Performance Incentive (Attachment 4) FFP N/A Proposed Incentive $ (E)

0900 LAAFB (Procurement Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0901 CCAFS/45th SW (Procurement Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0902 CCAFS/45th SW (O&M Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0903 VAFB/ 30th SW (Procurement Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0904 VAFB/ 30th SW (O&M Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0905 LAAFB (RDT&E Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

0906 Other Direct Costs CR $500,000 N/A $500,000

0907 Data NSP N/A N/A N/A

0908 Performance Incentive (Attachment 4) FFP N/A Proposed Incentive $ (E)

1000 LAAFB (Procurement Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

1001 CCAFS/45th SW (Procurement Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

1002 CCAFS/45th SW (O&M Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

1003 VAFB/ 30th SW (Procurement Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

1004 VAFB/ 30th SW (O&M Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

1005 LAAFB (RDT&E Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

1006 Other Direct Costs CR $500,000 N/A $500,000

1007 Data NSP N/A N/A N/A

1008 Performance Incentive (Attachment 4) FFP N/A Proposed Incentive $ (E)

1100 LAAFB (Procurement Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

1101 CCAFS/45th SW (Procurement Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

1102 CCAFS/45th SW (O&M Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

1103 VAFB/ 30th SW (Procurement Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

1104 VAFB/ 30th SW (O&M Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

1105 LAAFB (RDT&E Funds) CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee $ (D + E)

1106 Other Direct Costs CR $250,000 N/A $250,000

1107 Data NSP N/A N/A N/A

1108 Performance Incentive (Attachment 4) FFP N/A Proposed Incentive $ (E)

TEP Summation of above totals

2.5.2.1 Fixed Fee and Performance Incentive 451

The total fixed fee shall not exceed 3% of the total estimated cost excluding the cost of money for all 453 CPFF CLINs. In addition to the fixed fee, no more than 7% of the total estimated cost (excluding cost of 454 money) of all CPFF CLINs shall be used to create the objective performance incentive pool (OPIP) 455 outlined in Section J, Attachment 4 of the model contract. The OPIP is captured in the Model Contract 456 CLIN Series XX08. 457

2.5.3 Evaluation Area Details 459

The proposal must contain sufficient details for the Government evaluation of the following areas: 461

2.5.3.1 Reasonableness 463

The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for reasonableness, where reasonableness will be an assessment 465 of whether the price is too high. In conducting the reasonableness analysis, the Government will use one 466 or more analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1. A determination of unreasonableness will render 467 the proposal unawardable. In addition, proposals that have been assessed to be technically unacceptable 468 are ineligible for award, and as a result, a reasonableness determination will not be made for technically 469 unacceptable, unawardable proposals. 470

2.5.3.2 Realism 473

Cost realism analysis is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each 475 Offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic 476 for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with 477 the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal. (FAR 478 15.404-1(d)(1)). The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for cost realism; cost realism analysis shall be 479 performed on cost-reimbursement CLINs to determine the probable cost of performance for each Offeror. 480 (FAR 15.404-1(d)(2). 481 The Offeror’s proposed costs as provided in the Cost/Price Volume will be evaluated via a cost analysis 483 approach. This process involves the Government’s review and evaluation of specific cost elements of 484 the Offeror’s cost/price. Any proposed cost element may be adjusted based upon the Government 485 analysis of each proposed cost element. The cost analysis will consider the Offeror’s proposed approach. 486 Cost adjustments will consider weaknesses in the technical proposal that impact the costs. Cost 487 adjustments will also consider missing costs that will likely be incurred for the contract with the proposed 488 solution. Cost adjustments will consider any Offeror-initiated unsubstantiated decrements to historical 489 hours/costs. The cost adjustments will result in the Government’s Most Probable Cost (MPC) that will 490 be incorporated into the TEP calculation for best value consideration. The realism assessment will focus 491 on whether the proposed price is too low. Therefore, all cost adjustments will be upward; there will not 492 be any downward adjustments. 493 No MPC adjustment will be made for deficiencies; however, deficiencies may render your proposal 495 unrealistic. The Offeror’s proposal must be clear and convincing in demonstrating that the costs in the 496 Offeror’s proposal are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the 497 requirements; and are consistent with the Offeror’s technical proposal (FAR 15.404-1(d)). Over-498 proposing of unwanted tasks and associated costs will NOT result in a probable cost adjustment but may 499 result in an unreasonableness determination. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer 500 determines that the lack of realism poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. 501

2.5.3.3 Unbalanced Pricing (Applies to all contract line items) 503 The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for the presence of unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). 504 Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more 505 contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price 506 analysis techniques. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of 507 balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. 508

2.5.3.4 Total Proposed Price (TPP) 510

The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for accuracy in calculating the proposed Total Proposed Price 511 (TPP) and for compliance with the instructions for calculating the proposed Total Proposed Price. 512

2.5.3.5 Total Evaluated Price (TEP) 514

The Government will adjust the TPP to incorporate the Government’s Most Probable Cost (developed 515 under paragraph 2.5.2) resulting in the Government-calculated TEP. The TEP will be used by the Source 516 Selection Authority in the best value decision process. 517

2.5.3.6 519 Insufficient details to support the determination of reasonableness, realism, or non-presence of unbalanced 520 pricing, initially or subsequently, may be a consideration for excluding the Offeror’s proposal from the 521 competitive range and further consideration for award. The burden of proof rests with the Offeror. 522

2.5.3.7 524 Data in Volume VI (Model Contract) will be compared to the CLIN amounts and Rate Schedules in the 525 Cost/Price Volume to ensure that the prices in the Cost/Price Volume flow to the CLINs in a consistent 526 and accurate manner. If there is an inconsistency, the values in the Model Contract will take precedent 527 and be used in the TEP calculation. 528

2.6 Factor 4: Small Business Participation 530

The Offeror demonstrates a small business participation percentage of 25% or more in the Small Business 532 Percentage Calculation spreadsheet as part of Section J Attachment 11 Small Business Participation 533 Commitment Document. This Subfactor will be rated on an acceptable or unacceptable scale as described 534 below in Table 4. 535

Table 4 Small Business Rating Method Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

Small Business objectives are defined as: (1) Submission of an acceptable small business subcontracting 538 plan, if required; (2) Submission of a Small Business Participation Commitment Document that 539 proposes at least 25% based on total contract value; and (3) Submission of evidence of enforceable 540 commitments that cover the entirety of the required 25% or more small business participation. 541