7-_M101_M102_Rev_0_-_31_May_13.pdf

LSMA M101 & M102 – Rev 0 31 May 2013 Page 1 of 16

FA8818-13-R-0021

Clause M101 “Source Selection”

Clause M102 “Evaluation Factors”

LSMA M101 & M102 – Rev 0 31 May 2013 Page 2 of 16

M101 SOURCE SELECTION

Selection of an Offeror to provide Launch Services Mission Assurance services will be based upon a best value determination. In conjunction with the basic contract award, the Government may award additional Contract Line Items (CLINs) for any or all of the Sample Missions or Special Studies.

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

This is a best value full tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

The procurement has been designated a Small Business Set Aside (SBSA). The Government will select the best overall Small Business offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Risk, Past Performance, and Cost/price. A contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, 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 judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher price Offeror outweighs the price difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

The Government reserves the right to award the contract without discussions. If during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, then Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection.

If there is not at least one Small Business Offeror determined in the competitive range (or awardable without discussions), the PCO may terminate the source selection after the Initial Evaluation and direct the RFP to be re-issued as a full and open competition without the SBSA restriction.

If there is not at least one Small Business Offeror determined awardable at the conclusion of discussions, the PCO may terminate the source selection prior to Final Proposal Revisions request and direct the RFP to be re-issued as a full and open competition without the SBSA restriction.

LSMA M101 & M102 – Rev 0 31 May 2013 Page 3 of 16

2.0 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one contract to one Offeror. The Government reserves the right to make no award if no proposal received meets the Government’s criteria for awardability.

3.0 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers

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

4.0 Correction Potential of Proposals

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

5.0 Government Furnished Property (GFP)

When the Contractor is required to work in a Government facility, the Government may furnish or make available working space, equipment, and network access. Copies of required materials cited in the RFP, PWS, and DD Form 254 may be provided to the Contractor in hard copy or soft copy.

All materials will remain the property of the Government and will be returned to the COR upon request or at the end of the CLIN period of performance. Special provisions concerning the custody of various pieces of equipment for investigation or analysis will be provided on an as-needed basis. The Government shall provide base support as specified in the attached Base Support Agreements (RFP attachment TBD). The Contractor shall create and maintain records of all Government property accountable to the contract, including Government-furnished and Contractor-acquired property.

5.1 Requests for property or services not covered in this section shall be identified in the Offeror’s proposal.

6.0 Number of Proposals

Each Offeror may provide only a single proposal.

LSMA M101 & M102 – Rev 0 31 May 2013 Page 4 of 16

M102 EVALUATION FACTORS

The Government will evaluate each proposal against the requirements as described below.

1. General Information Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the LSMA service most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Technical Approach (TA) Subfactor 2: Service Performance Management (SPM) Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Cost/Price

1.1 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2, with Factor 3 considered less important than Factors 1 or 2.

Within the Technical Factor, Subfactor 1 is more important than Subfactor 2. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e) all evaluation factors other than Cost/price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost/price.

1.2 Technical Factor

The Technical evaluation will be made using DoD Source Selection Procedures Methodology 1: Combined Technical/Risk Rating. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

1.3 Positive Consideration

Positive consideration may be given through assessment of a Strength for 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. Demonstrated achievement of performance objective values may merit assessment of a strength. Other potential strength assessments are identified in the Technical subfactors.

1.4 Definition of Assessments

The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated against the individual elements of each criterion under the Technical subfactors to determine if the proposal meets the requirements. Proposal elements may be given one of the following assessments (see

FAR 15.001):

Assessment Description

Strength 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

LSMA M101 & M102 – Rev 0 31 May 2013 Page 5 of 16

Weakness A flaw in the Offeror’s proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

Significant Weakness A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

Deficiency 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

2. Technical Factor

2.1 Combined Technical/Risk Rating

Each Technical subfactor (TA and SPM) will receive one of the color ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 1 – Technical/Risk Ratings, excerpted below.

2.2 Evaluation Criteria for Subfactor 1: Technical Approach

This subfactor evaluates the degree to which the service proposed demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements for each of the service requirements outlined below.

2.2.1 XBM Sustainment Engineering

2.2.1.1 XBM Refurbishment. The Offeror must demonstrate an understanding of the

Minuteman and Peacekeeper motor refurbishment processes and demonstrate the capability to develop refurbishment procedures and effectively oversee refurbishment implementation.

2.2.1.2 XBM AS Process. The Offeror must demonstrate an executable end-to-end aging surveillance process to include development of an annual AS Plan to ensure safe storage , support Useful Life Estimates and ordnance certifications.

TABLE 1 – TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is unawardable.

LSMA M101 & M102 – Rev 0 31 May 2013 Page 6 of 16

2.2.1.3 XBM AS Requirements. The Offeror must demonstrate an approach which provides a sound methodology for determining annual aging surveillance test and analysis requirements.

2.2.1.4 XBM AS Planning. The Offeror must demonstrate an approach which provides timely and effective identification and planning of Government and contract actions to implement annual aging surveillance requirements.

2.2.1.5 XBM AS Analysis. The Offeror must demonstrate an approach which provides sound analysis of aging surveillance test data.

2.2.1.6 XBM AS Reporting. The Offeror must demonstrate an approach which provides effective reporting of aging surveillance results.

2.2.1.7 XBM Enhancements. The Government may consider beneficial enhancements that exceed the threshold performance requirements if they are evaluated to be strengths in accordance with AFFARS 5315.305. In particular, the Government will consider how the Offeror’s approach presents enhanced XBM Sustainment Engineering success and could improve the Government’s ability to execute in a cost-constrained and volatile environment.

2.2.2 New Launch System IV&V

The Offeror’s proposals for IV&V of New Launch Systems will be evaluated in the following areas as described.

2.2.2.1 New Launch System IV&V Analysis. The Offeror must demonstrate an approach which provides effective IV&V analysis for new launch systems, tailored to the specified MA Category in accordance with the LSMA PWS.

2.2.2.2 New Launch System IV&V Reporting. The Offeror must demonstrate an approach which provides timely and effective planning and reporting of IV&V activities for new launch systems in support of the Government’s major reviews.

2.2.2.3 New Launch System Risk Assessment. The Offeror must demonstrate an approach which provides timely and effective assessment of residual mission risks in support of the Government’s readiness review processes for new launch systems.

2.2.2.4 New Launch System IV&V Tools. The Offeror must demonstrate the ability to develop and use the tools and models necessary to complete independent verification of the launch system contractor’s hardware and mission designs.

2.2.2.5 New Launch System Requirements IV&V. The Offeror must demonstrate an understanding and propose a sound approach to perform analyses to validate system requirements and verify system compliance with requirements.

2.2.2.6 New Launch System Payload Integration Verification. The Offeror must demonstrate an understanding and propose a sound approach to evaluate launch vehicle and payload integration activities to ensure compatibility between the payload and launch vehicle is verified.

LSMA M101 & M102 – Rev 0 31 May 2013 Page 7 of 16

2.2.2.7 New Launch System Range Integration Verification. The Offeror must demonstrate an understanding and propose a sound approach to evaluate new designs for range integration and verification activities to ensure the launch vehicle meets range safety, compatibility, and interoperability requirements, including launch campaign support.

2.2.2.8 New Launch System Interface Verification. The Offeror must demonstrate an understanding and propose a sound approach to evaluate interface control activities.

2.2.2.9 XBM Motor Utilization on New Launch Systems: The offeror must demonstrate an understanding and propose a sound approach to support XBM utilization on new launch systems, including XBM flight motor processing, GTM processing, and provision of engineering services, technical knowledge, and expertise to integrate XBM motors and equipment into the launch vehicle design and mission operations.

2.2.2.10 New Launch System IV&V Enhancements. The Government may consider beneficial enhancements that exceed the threshold performance requirements if they are evaluated to be strengths in accordance with AFFARS 5315.305. In particular, the Government will consider how the Offeror’s approach presents enhanced System IV&V and could improve our ability to execute in a cost-constrained and volatile environment.

2.2.3 Existing Launch System IV&V

The Offeror’s proposals for IV&V of launch services utilizing existing designs will be evaluated in the following areas as described.

2.2.3.1 Existing Launch System IV&V Analysis. The Offeror must demonstrate an approach which provides effective IV&V analysis for launch services utilizing existing launch systems, tailored to the specified MA Category in accordance with the LSMA PWS.

2.2.3.2 Existing Launch System IV&V Reporting. The Offeror must demonstrate an approach which provides timely and effective planning and reporting of IV&V activities for launch services utilizing existing launch systems in support of the Government’s major reviews.

2.2.3.3 Existing Launch System Risk Assessment. The Offeror must demonstrate an approach which provides timely and effective assessment of residual risks in support of the Government’s readiness review processes for launch services utilizing existing launch systems.

2.2.3.4 Existing Launch System IV&V Tools. The Offeror must demonstrate the ability to develop and use the tools and models necessary to complete independent verification of the launch service contractor’s mission design.

2.2.3.5 Existing Launch System Requirements IV&V. The Offeror must demonstrate an understanding and propose a sound approach to perform analyses and trade studies to validate mission requirements and verify launch service compliance with mission requirements.

LSMA M101 & M102 – Rev 0 31 May 2013 Page 8 of 16

2.2.3.6 Existing Launch System Payload Integration Verification. The Offeror must demonstrate an understanding and propose a sound approach to evaluate launch vehicle and payload integration activities to ensure compatibility between the payload and launch vehicle is verified.

2.2.3.7 Existing Launch System Range Integration Verification. The Offeror must demonstrate an understanding and propose a sound approach to evaluate launch vehicle and range integration and verification activities to ensure the launch vehicle meets range safety, compatibility, and interoperability requirements, including launch campaign support.

2.2.3.8 Existing Launch System Interface Verification. The Offeror must demonstrate an understanding and propose a sound approach to evaluate interface control activities.

2.2.3.9 XBM Motor Utilization on Existing Systems: The offeror must demonstrate an understanding and propose a sound approach to support XBM utilization on existing launch systems, including XBM flight motor processing, GTM processing, and and provision of engineering services, technical knowledge, and expertise to integrate XBM motors and equipment into mission operations.

2.2.3.10 Existing Launch System IV&V Enhancements. The Government may consider beneficial enhancements that exceed the threshold performance requirements if they are evaluated to be strengths in accordance with AFFARS

5315.305. In particular, the Government will consider how the Offeror’s approach presents enhanced Service IV&V and could improve our ability to execute in a cost-constrained and volatile environment.

2.2.4 Special Studies (SS)

2.2.4.1 SS Planning. The Offeror must demonstrate an approach which provides effective planning for special studies activities to meet the Government’s study objectives.

2.2.4.2 SS Execution. The Offeror must demonstrate an approach which provides timely and effective execution of required analyses to develop supportable conclusions.

2.2.4.3 SS Presentation. The Offeror must demonstrate effective presentation of special study results.

2.2.4.4 SS Enhancements. The Government may consider beneficial enhancements that exceed the threshold performance requirements if they are evaluated to be strengths in accordance with AFFARS 5315.305. In particular, the Government will consider how the Offeror’s approach presents enhanced Special Study value and could improve our ability to execute in a cost-constrained and volatile environment.

2.3 Evaluation Criteria for Subfactor 2: Service Performance Management This subfactor evaluates the level of confidence that the Government has in the ability of the Offeror to manage their proposed service to meet actual mission requirements and program objectives in each of the areas outlined below.

2.3.1 Management Approach

LSMA M101 & M102 – Rev 0 31 May 2013 Page 9 of 16

2.3.1.1 Program Interface. The Offeror must demonstrate a management approach which maintains reasonable and cooperative interface with the Government’s Logistics Managers, Engineering Managers, Mission Managers, Launch Vehicle Single Managers, and Program Manager.

2.3.1.2 Lessons Learned Dissemination. The Offeror must define the processes to share findings with Government personnel, ASCONs, and launch contractors to ensure the mission assurance findings are incorporated into the mission and future missions via lessons learned.

2.3.1.3 ASCON Interface. The Offeror must demonstrate a management approach which maintains an effective and efficient interface with RSLP ASCONs.

2.3.1.4 Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). The Offeror’s WBS must identify the distinct XBM Sustainment and IV&V tasks planned for execution to meet the requirements of the PWS.

2.3.1.5 Integrated Schedules (IS). The Offeror’s IS’s for each effort must represent achievable timelines to accomplish the WBS tasks, with traceability to the PWS.

2.3.1.6 Fluctuation Management. The Offeror may earn a Strength by demonstrating a management approach which maintains core expertise during mission manifest fluctuations through innovative solutions which maintain performance.

2.3.2 Transition Plan

2.3.2.1 90 Day Attainment. The Offeror must demonstrate an incoming transition plan which credibly identifies a capability attainment schedule for XBM Sustainment Engineering to support full capability within 90 days (threshold) or 45 days (objective) of contract award.

2.3.2.2 PWS Readiness. The Offeror must demonstrate that all LSMA PWS requirements will be met with no delays or deficiencies.

2.3.2.3 Incumbent Interchange. The Offeror must demonstrate an incoming transition plan which supports execution of the incumbent’s outgoing transition (L102 Appendix A) by providing adequate information and process capture planning to effectively support the transition interchange meetings.

2.3.2.4 Follow-on Interchange. The Offeror must demonstrate an outgoing transition plan which supports a successful transition to a follow-on contract effort at the end of the LSMA period of performance.

2.3.2.5 Transition Plan Enhancements. The Government may consider beneficial enhancements that exceed the threshold performance requirements if they are evaluated to be strengths in accordance with AFFARS 5315.305. In particular, the Government will consider how the Offeror’s approach presents enhanced transition success and could improve our ability to execute in a cost-constrained and volatile environment.

2.3.3 Key Personnel

LSMA M101 & M102 – Rev 0 31 May 2013 Page 10 of 16

2.3.3.1 5 Key Positions. The Offeror must demonstrate an understanding of personnel experience and expertise required to perform RSLP XBM Sustainment and Launch System IV&V by identifying the roles, responsibilities, experience and expertise required for the 5 key positions most critical to meeting the PWS requirements. Key position roles and responsibilities must demonstrate the proposed technical approach and management approach.

2.3.3.2 Key Personnel. The Offeror must identify fully qualified personnel to fill the key positions proposed to perform the RSLP mission, and the timeframe in which those key personnel are committed to begin performance.

2.3.3.3 Personnel Location. The Offeror must demonstrate an understanding and propose a sound approach for capturing personnel and task requirements at each proposed location. Adequate personnel to execute LSMA PWS requirements must be demonstrated. Roles and responsibilities of personnel planned to be located in the Hill AFB, UT area, and on site at Kirtland AFB, NM must be identified. Planned location of all LSMA personnel must be identified.

2.3.3.4 Transition Team. The Offeror must demonstrate a transition team which supports execution of the incumbent’s transition (see L102 Appendix A), providing adequate personnel with the proper expertise to effectively support the transition interchanges within the transition time period.

2.3.4 Cost Control/Target Price Reduction Plan

2.3.4.1 Price Target Oversight. The Offeror must demonstrate a plan to project, monitor, and control costs to meet price targets.

2.3.4.2 Target Price Reduction Enhancement. The Government may consider beneficial enhancements that exceed the performance requirements if they are evaluated to be strengths in accordance with AFFARS 5315.305. In particular, the Government will consider how the Offeror’s Target Price Reduction Plan preserves launch success while providing cost efficiencies on subsequent efforts to continually reduce XBM Sustainment and IV&V costs.

3. Past Performance Factor The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the required effort based upon recent and relevant performance.

3.1 Ratings

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below.

TABLE 5 - PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE RATINGS

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.

LSMA M101 & M102 – Rev 0 31 May 2013 Page 11 of 16

In accordance with FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv), in the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

3.2 Evaluation Process

The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record(s) of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. 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, taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in paragraph 1.1. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. 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; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

To be recent, an effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past five (5) years prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

3.3 Relevancy Assessment

The Government will evaluate all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors. For each recent past performance effort reviewed, a relevancy determination will be assessed relative to each of the Technical subfactors (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered), including the efforts of joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s).

In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the

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.

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.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE

(NEUTRAL)

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.

LSMA M101 & M102 – Rev 0 31 May 2013 Page 12 of 16 effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information forms (PPIFs) and information obtained from other sources may be used to establish the degree of relevancy.

LSMA M101 & M102 – Rev 0 31 May 2013 Page 13 of 16

The Government will use the following relevancy ratings when assessing relevancy of recent contracts for each subfactor:

3.4 Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will assess the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts) for each Technical subfactor and

LSMA PAST PERFORMANCE SUBFACTOR RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Technical Approach Service Performance Management

VERY RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved excess ballistic missile motor fleet sustainment, or IV&V of launch systems/services, or related special studies.

Present/past performance effort involved management, transition, staffing, and/or cost control for sustainment engineering, systems engineering and integration, operations services, and/or mission assurance services for >4 missions and >$10M/yr.

RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved solid rocket motor sustainment, V&V of missile/space launch vehicle subsystems or support services, and/or related special studies.

Present/past performance effort involved management, transition, staffing, and/or cost control for sustainment engineering, systems engineering and integration, operations services, and/or mission assurance services for >1 mission and $2M- $10M/yr.

SOMEWHAT

RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved solid rocket motor test and analysis, analysis of missile/space launch vehicle subsystems or support services, and/or related special studies.

Present/past performance effort involved management, transition, staffing, and/or cost control for sustainment engineering, systems engineering and integration, operations services, and/or mission assurance services for at least 1 mission/yr.

NOT RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort did not involve solid rocket motor test and analysis, analysis of missile/space launch vehicle subsystems or support services, and/or related special studies.

Present/past performance effort did not involve management, transition, staffing, and/or cost control for sustainment engineering, systems engineering and integration, operations services, and/or mission assurance services.

LSMA M101 & M102 – Rev 0 31 May 2013 Page 14 of 16

Cost/Price Factor criterion. The individual performance quality assessments for each effort will be evaluated to develop a performance quality assessment for each criterion.

The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory assessment on any evaluation criterion 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 quality levels when assessing performance quality of recent, relevant efforts:

Quality Assessment Rating/Color

Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E)/BLUE

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

VERY GOOD (VG)/PURPLE

During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered. Contractor took timely corrective action.

SATISFACTORY (S)/GREEN

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M)/YELLOW

During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY(U)/RED

During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fail) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

NOT APPLICABLE (N)/WHITE Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

3.5 Assigning Ratings –

As a result of the performance quality assessments for each criterion, aggregate performance quality assessments for each Technical subfactor as well as for the Cost/Price Factor will be assessed. Based upon the Technical subfactor and Cost/Price Factor quality assessments, Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor 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 an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

LSMA M101 & M102 – Rev 0 31 May 2013 Page 15 of 16

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

The Government will not make a contract award to any Offeror receiving a rating of “No Confidence” in the Past Performance factor regardless of their rating on other factors.

4. Cost/price Factor The Cost/price proposal will be evaluated for the Total Evaluated Price and Most Probable Cost as well as for reasonableness, realism, and un-balanced pricing (FAR 15.404-1).

Offers should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness and realism.

4.1 Reasonableness. Reasonableness of an Offeror’s proposed cost/price will be evaluated using one or more of the cost and price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404.

For a cost/price to be reasonable, it must represent a cost/price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business [reference FAR 31.201-3(a)]. Current and historical costs for similar XBM Sustainment, IV&V, Transition Support, and Special Study efforts will be used to support this evaluation.

4.2 Realism. The Government will evaluate the realism of each Offeror’s proposed costs.

This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed costs are sufficient for the work to be performed, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, and consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal (FAR 15.404-1(d)(1), (3) and 2.101). The Most Probable Cost (MPC) will consider technical/management risks identified during the evaluation of the proposal, and associated costs. Cost information supporting a cost judged to be unrealistically low and technical/management risk associated with the proposal will be quantified by the Government evaluators and included in the MPC for each Offeror.

When the Government evaluates an offer as unrealistically low compared to the anticipated costs of performance and the Offeror fails to explain these underestimated costs, the Government will consider, under the combined Technical/Risk evaluation, the Offeror’s lack of understanding of the technical requirements of the applicable Technical subfactor. The Offeror’s Basis of Estimate for XBM Sustainment and IV&V will be used to support this evaluation. Cost realism analysis will not be conducted on FFP requirements.

4.3 Unbalanced Pricing. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed costs for unbalanced pricing with respect to the XBM Sustainment Base Period CLINs, Option Period CLINs, and IV&V CLINs in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g).

4.4 Total Evaluated Price. The Government does not anticipate significant use of GFP/GFE/GFS and base/range support outside of that identified in the Base Support Plan and GFE List which are available to all offerors, so no TEP adjustment is planned for these items. Total Evaluated Price will be determined as a composite sum of prices

LSMA M101 & M102 – Rev 0 31 May 2013 Page 16 of 16 for XBM Sustainment, Launch System IV&V, Transition Support option, and Special Studies, as follows (Section L102 Appendix D):

4.4.1 XBM Sustainment Total Price: The proposed Prices for the base period, all four option periods, and the transition option period will be evaluated, based on the “XBM Sustainment Pricing Table” (Section L102 Appendix D) as follows:

XBM Sustainment (Level 6) Base Period

XBM Sustainment (Level 4) Option Period 1

XBM Sustainment (Level 1) Option Period 2

XBM Sustainment (Level 3) Option Period 3

XBM Sustainment (Level 7) Option Period 4

4.4.2 Transition Support Option: The proposed Firm Fixed Price for the Transition Support option based upon the price identified in Section L102 Appendix D.

4.4.3 Launch System IV&V Price: The proposed Price for the sample missions (SM) will be evaluated, based on the composite sum of SM 2.x Target Prices and SM3.x Ceiling Prices proposed.(Section L102 Appendix D):

4.4.4 Special Studies Price: The proposed Firm Fixed Price for the Special Studies will be evaluated, based on the price proposed for the “Special Study Manifest” (Section L102 Appendix D).