SEC M002 7 Oct 09 update.pdf

RFP FA8811‐09‐R‐0002 SECTION M

7 Oct 09 Sec M002 Evaluation Criteria

SEC M M002 21 Sep 09

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

A This is a competitive best value source selection using a Performance Price tradeoff (PPT) methodology in which competing offerors' past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than cost or price considerations: however, Cost/Price will contribute substantially to the selection decision. The government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offer if the lowest priced offeror is judged to have a performance confidence assessment of "Satisfactory Confidence" or lower. In that event, the Source Selection Authority shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

B By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors. All technically acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable.

Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

2. Evaluation Criteria

A Technical Acceptability. Initially, the government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable, or Unacceptable. To be rated acceptable, the technical proposal must pass in all subfactors.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following sub-factors:

i) Sub-factor 1. Organizational Methodology.

Organization Narrative. Description of proposed subcontractors, teaming and/or joint venture partners personnel with their specific areas of responsibilities will be evaluated to determine completeness of offeror's approach in providing all of the required task area capabilities, The organization narrative evaluation will include an assessment of whether the offeror's submitted matrix addresses all of the eight PWS SE&I functional task areas by location.

ii) Sub-factor 2. Key Positions. Key management and technical positions will be evaluated against PWS tasks along with rationale for designation of these positions along with resumes (no names) showing experience and education and consistency of company requirements for these positions. Minimum named key positions have been provided in SMC-H007.

iii) Sub-factor 3. Workload Fluctuation. Methodology for workload fluctuation will be evaluated based on logic and ability to meet mission requirements for launch

SEC M M002 21 Sep 09 periods as described in PWS 1.2.1.2.4, 1.3.1.1.1.12, 1.4.2.1.2.4, 1.4.2.1.3.5,

1.4.1.1.2.1 and 1.4.2.1.2.2.

iv) Sub-factor 4. Recruitment and Retention. Recruitment and retention will be evaluated to assess offeror's processes and procedures to attract, motivate, and retain highly qualified, fully trained, professional, and dedicated personnel at all levels within the proposed organization.

v) Sub-factor 5. Skill Mix. The completed Section L-1, Attachment 2 matrix will be evaluated to determine the offeror's understanding of the PWS requirements and adequacy of proper skill mix.

vi) Sub-factor 6. Subcontracting. Large business offeror proposals will be evaluated as to whether or not they proposed to subcontract a minimum of 20% of the work to small business. To meet the 20% requirement, the offeror’s proposal must show that at least 20% of the total proposed FTEs are comprised of small business subcontracts.

vii) Sub-factor 7. Subcontracting Plan. Large business Subcontracting Plans will be evaluated for content in accordance with FAR 19.704 and Sec H SMC-H033.

B Price Evaluation. Next, the government shall rank all technically acceptable offers by price, including all option prices.

i) An offeror's proposed prices will be determined by a validation of estimated cost on the spreadsheets provided (Attachment 3 to Section L) and then confirming the spreadsheet pricing against the CLIN pricing in Section B.

ii) The labor rates, G&A, Facility Capital Cost of Money (FCCOM), and

Overhead rates will be validated against DCMA approved FPRAs if provided and/or DCMA recommended/interim rates. For those offers received without DCMA approved FPRAs, validation of rates may be performed by DCAA.

iii) The cost evaluation will document the reasonableness and realism of the offeror's proposal for both the core and non-core performance periods (i.e., the total potential 10 year period, including SMC- - H005 pursuant to FAR 52.217-05).

iv) The Offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes based the offeror’s cost/price or on the Most Probable Cost (MPC) computed by the Government for the basic requirements (base year period) and all options, including the two Award Term (AT) options. The adequacy of the OCI mitigation plan is solely a matter of offeror responsibility; however, where the plan relies on Government oversight as a mitigation technique, the cost of that oversight will be considered in formulating the MPC. For purposes of formulating the MPC where an offeror’s OCI mitigation plan relies on Government oversight (See Sec L SMC L001(b)(2)(B)), a Government average burdened FTE rate of $157,859 for

SEC M M002 21 Sep 09

LAAFB, $153,851 for CCAFS, and $143,565 for VAFB will be used and escalated 2% per year for the option years.

v) Reasonableness – Reasonableness of the offeror’s proposed cost/price will be evaluated using one or more price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404- 1(b). If the Contracting Officer determines that Adequate Price Competition (APC) has not been obtained, reasonableness will be evaluated using cost analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(c).

vi) Realism - The Government will perform a cost realism analysis on each of the technically acceptable Contractor's proposed costs in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d). This analysis will include a review and evaluation of the specific elements of the offeror's proposed cost estimate to determine whether the proposed estimated cost are realistic for the work to be performed, and reflects a clear understanding of the requirement; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal. Further, this analysis will determine the most probable cost of performance. The most probable cost may differ from the offeror's proposed cost and will be used for purposes of evaluation to determine lowest price. The most probable cost is determined by adjusting the offeror's proposed CLIN costs including all options, and fee, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels. This will also include, but not be limited to, a validation of rates against FPRAs, DCAA rate audits; a check for arithmetic errors; additions for the cost of Government oversight when used as an OCI Mitigation tool; additions/deductions for travel and other direct costs, etc.

vii) In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g) all offers with separately priced line items or subline items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced.

C Performance Confidence Assessment. Finally, using questionnaires (attachment 2), the

Government will evaluate relevant performance information on all technically acceptable offerors by contacting (1) the past and present customers provided by the offeror (subsection L-1, attachment 3) and (2) evaluating data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources. Included in the past performance rating will be an assessment of the offeror's past and current success in achieving small business subcontracting goals.

i) Relevant Performance. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving experience in major space launch programs, preferably on a military/joint programs. Experience within the following discipline areas will be considered relevant: mission integration management; systems security and information assurance; systems engineering & integration, systems safety engineering; systems environmental engineering, product assurance, launch risk management and launch schedule management that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude and complexity to the effort described in this solicitation. The

SEC M M002 21 Sep 09 government will evaluate the quality and extent of offeror's performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this RFP. The government will use information submitted by the offeror and other sources such as other Federal Government offices and commercial sources, to assess performance. Relevancy as to the magnitude and complexity of the experience in each of the above discipline areas will be evaluated when assessing the offeror's past performance against the requirements described in this solicitation. The relevancy and past/present performance experience of the offeror and its teammates/subcontractors, predecessor companies or key personnel will be integrated to develop overall team past performance evaluation ratings for each task area. Relevancy definitions are provided in Attachment 1 to this Section.

ii) The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence as defined in MP5315.3, Table 3. Offerors or subcontractors/teammates with no relevant past or present performance history or the offeror's performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "Unknown Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

iii) Recent Performance. Assessment 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 within the past 3 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Note that the Government generally will not consider performance on a newly awarded contract without a performance history or on an effort that concluded more than 3 years prior to this source selection.

iv) If the lowest price evaluated technically acceptable offer is judged to have a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment, that offer represents the best value for the government and the evaluation stops at that point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

v) In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant and recent to the effort described in this RFP.

3. Communications

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L. Offeror's may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communications conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

4. Contract Award

The government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors.

The government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

ATTACHMENT 1

RELEVANCY DEFINITIONS

VERY RELEVANT Past/present performance effort involved essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT Past/present performance effort involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT Past/present performance effort involved some of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT Past/present performance effort did not involve any of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation required.

ATTACHMENT 2

QUESTIONNAIRE TO BE COMPLETED

BY GOVERNMENT EVALUATOR ONLY

Past Performance Evaluation Sheet Questionnaire

PWS TASK AREA: _____________________

Contractor:

Contractor was : Prime Subcontractor

Party Contacted & Info

Organization Name:__________________________

Contact Name and Title:______________________

Telephone Number:_________________________

Description of work contractor performed:

Contractor Period of Performance:

Contract Value:

Contract Type: FFP FPI CPIF CPAF CPFF

1) Did the Contractor keep an open flow of communication with the Program office/Contracting?

2) Did the Contractor manage personnel (hiring/retention) adequately with the correct skill mix and delegate authority appropriately?

Legend:

E = Exceptional G = Very Good S = Satisfactory M = Marginal U = Unsatisfactory N = Neutral

E G S M U N

E G S M U N

3) Did the Contractor work within funding and schedule constraints?

4) Did the Contractor demonstrate a professional knowledge of engineering concepts, principles and practices including various disciplines associated with launch vehicles and/or space systems?

5) Did the contractor show a thorough understanding of programmatic risk management processes (e.g., technical risk assessment tool and tracking anomalies)?

6) Did the contractor demonstrate an ability to properly implement configuration management measures?

7) Did the contractor actively participate in Operation Review Boards, Technical Interchange Meetings, Engineering Review Boards and Readiness Reviews and did the contractor effectively utilize the data gathered in these meetings to enable the customer to make key program decisions?

E G S M U N

E G S M U N

8) Did the contractor demonstrate an ability to effectively manage interfaces with diverse, complex systems, some of which may not fall under their configuration control?

9) Did the contractor produce quality work/products with few errors/changes required?

10) How would you rate the contractor overall?

11) Knowing what you know today, would you hire this Contractor again? Yes No

Interviewer

Exceptional Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory Neutral

Performance meets contractual requirements with many exceeded to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub‐element being assessed was accomplished with no more than a few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Performance meets contractual requirements with some exceeded to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub‐element being assessed was accomplished with no more than some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Performance meets contractual requirements.

The contractual performance of the element or sub‐element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.

does not meet some contractual requirements.

The contractual performance of the element or sub‐element being assessed 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.

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub‐element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

was not observed or not applicable to the current effort being reported against.