FA8818-13-R-0021_LSMA_SecM.pdf

LSMA Section M 20 Aug 2013 Page 1 of 15

FA8818-13-R-0021

Clause M101 “Source Selection”

Clause M102 “Evaluation Factors”

LSMA Section M 20 Aug 2013 Page 2 of 15

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.

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 intends to award the contract without discussions. The Government reserves the right to enter into discussions if doing so is in the best interest of the Government.

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-solicited as a full and open competition.

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.

LSMA Section M 20 Aug 2013 Page 3 of 15

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 Section J, Attachment 3).

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 shall only provide one proposal. Alternative proposals or contingent offers will not be accepted.

LSMA Section M 20 Aug 2013 Page 4 of 15

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

Factors 1 and 2 are of equal importance, with Factor 3 considered less important. Within the Technical factor, the subfactors are ranked in order of importance. In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than cost or 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 2:

Separate Technical/Risk Rating Process. The offeror’s solution will be rated separately from the risk associated with its approach. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement.

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 and DoD Source Selection Procedures):

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

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

LSMA Section M 20 Aug 2013 Page 5 of 15

2. Technical Factor

2.1 Separate Technical/Risk Rating

2.1.1 Technical Rating

Each Technical subfactor (TA and SPM) will receive one of the color ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2 – Technical Ratings, excerpted below. These subfactor ratings will not be rolled up to a Technical Factor rating. Offerors should note from the definitions that a single Deficiency assessment may lead to a Red/Unacceptable subfactor rating, which makes the proposal unawardable.

TABLE 2 – TECHNICAL RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

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

2.1.2 Technical Risk Rating

Each Technical subfactor (TA and SPM) will also receive one of the risk ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 3 – Technical Risk Ratings, excerpted below. These subfactor ratings will not be rolled up to a Technical Factor rating. Assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

TABLE 3 – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Rating Description

Low

Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Can potentially cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

LSMA Section M 20 Aug 2013 Page 6 of 15

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

The Offeror’s proposal for the XBM Sustainment Engineering criterion will be evaluated in the following areas as described.

2.2.1.1 XBM Refurbishment. The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a full understanding of XBM motor refurbishment processes and demonstrate the capability to effectively support refurbishment planning and adequately oversee refurbishment implementation for AS motors.

2.2.1.2 XBM AS and Sustainment Process. The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates an executable and effective end-to-end aging surveillance process to include development of a thorough annual AS Plan to ensure safe storage , support Useful Life Estimates and ordnance certifications, identify equipment issues and secure equipment certifications.

2.2.1.3 XBM AS Requirements. The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates an approach which provides a sound methodology based on engineering principles for determining annual aging surveillance test and analysis requirements for the XBM motor fleets and components.

2.2.1.4 XBM AS Planning. The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates an approach which provides timely and effective identification, and comprehensive planning of Government and contract actions to implement annual aging surveillance requirements and effective analysis of viable alternatives.

2.2.1.5 XBM AS Analysis. The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates an approach which provides sound analysis of aging surveillance test data to develop supportable conclusions about XBM motor safety of storage and reliability of flight.

2.2.1.6 XBM AS Reporting. The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates an approach which provides effective and timely reporting of aging surveillance results.

2.2.1.7 XBM Refurbishment Procedures. The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates an approach which provides effective development, update, and validation of procedures for motor refurbishment.

2.2.1.8 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 improves XBM Sustainment Engineering process quality and/or could improve the Government’s ability to execute in a cost-constrained and volatile environment.

LSMA Section M 20 Aug 2013 Page 7 of 15

2.2.2 Launch System IV&V

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

2.2.2.1 Launch System IV&V Analysis. The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates an approach which provides effective IV&V analysis to affirm launch system mission performance predictions.

2.2.2.2 Launch System IV&V Reporting. The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates an approach which provides comprehensive planning and timely and accurate reporting of IV&V results and conclusions in support of the Government’s major reviews.

2.2.2.3 Launch System Risk Assessment. The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates an approach which provides timely and effective assessment of significant residual mission risks in support of the Government’s readiness review processes.

2.2.2.4 Launch System IV&V Tools. The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates the ability to develop, verify, and use effective tools and models necessary to complete independent verification of the launch system hardware and mission designs on a timely basis.

2.2.2.5 Launch System Requirements IV&V. The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a broad understanding and propose a sound technical approach to perform multi-disciplinary analyses to validate launch system requirements and verify launch system compliance with customer, stakeholder, and regulatory requirements.

2.2.2.6 Launch System Payload Integration Verification. The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates an understanding of probable technical issues and propose a practical approach to evaluate launch vehicle and payload integration activities to ensure compatibility is reliably verified.

2.2.2.7 Launch System Range Integration Verification. The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates an understanding of probable technical issues and propose a sound technical approach to evaluate 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 Launch System Interface Verification. The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates an understanding of probable technical issues and propose a sound technical approach to evaluate interface control activities.

2.2.2.9 XBM Motor Utilization: The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates an understanding of probable technical issues and propose a sound approach to support XBM motor utilization on 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 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 enhances System IV&V quality and/or could improve our ability to execute in a cost-constrained and volatile environment.

LSMA Section M 20 Aug 2013 Page 8 of 15

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

The Offeror’s proposal for the Management Approach criterion will be evaluated in the following areas as described.

2.3.1.1 Program Interface. The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates 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 Methodology. The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates defined practical processes to efficiently develop and effectively share findings with Government personnel, ASCONs, and launch service contractors to ensure mission assurance findings are incorporated into current and future missions via lessons learned.

2.3.1.3 ASCON Interface. The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a practical management approach which maintains an effective and efficient interface with RSLP ASCONs.

2.3.1.4 Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). The extent to which the Offeror’s WBS demonstrates and identifies all distinct XBM Sustainment and IV&V tasks planned for execution to meet the requirements of the PWS, with sufficient task descriptive details to allow for assessment of schedule realism and level of effort associated with the task.

2.3.1.5 Integrated Schedules (IS). The extent to which the Offeror IS for each effort presents reasonable timelines and sequencing to accomplish the WBS tasks. The Offeror’s IS must be fully traceable to the PWS via the Correlation Matrix.

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

The Offeror’s proposal for the Transition Plan criterion will be evaluated in the following areas as described.

2.3.2.1 90 Day Attainment. The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates 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 extent to which the Offeror demonstrates that LSMA PWS requirements will be met with no delays in schedule or deficiencies in performance.

2.3.2.3 Incumbent Interchange. The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates an incoming transition plan which supports execution of the incumbent’s outgoing transition (L102 Appendix E) by providing effective information and process capture planning to fully exploit the transition interchange meetings.

2.3.2.4 Follow-on Interchange. The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a comprehensive outgoing transition plan which supports 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.

LSMA Section M 20 Aug 2013 Page 9 of 15

2.3.3 Key Personnel

The Offeror’s proposal for the Key Personnel criterion will be evaluated in the following areas as described.

2.3.3.1 5 Key Positions. The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates an understanding of personnel technical and managerial experience and expertise required to perform RSLP XBM Sustainment and Launch System IV&V and identifies the roles, responsibilities, experience and expertise required for the 5 key positions most critical to meeting the PWS requirements.

The extent to which key position roles and responsibilities effectively demonstrate execution of the proposed technical approach and management approach.

2.3.3.2 Key Personnel. The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates 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 Key Personnel Location. The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates planned location of Key Personnel, demonstrating sound approaches for capturing and managing task requirements at each proposed location.

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

2.3.4 Efficiency Plan

The Offeror’s proposal for the Efficiency Plan criterion will be evaluated in the following areas as described.

2.3.4.1 Price Target Oversight. The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a plan to effectively identify and comprehensively implement efficiencies 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.

LSMA Section M 20 Aug 2013 Page 10 of 15

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.

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.

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.

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 Section M 20 Aug 2013 Page 11 of 15

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

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 Section M 20 Aug 2013 Page 12 of 15

3.4 Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will assess the performance quality (how well the contractor performed on the contracts) of recent, relevant efforts for each Technical subfactor. The individual performance quality assessments for each effort will be evaluated to develop performance quality assessments. 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 evaluated effort, performance quality assessments for each Technical subfactor will be assessed. Based upon the Technical subfactor performance 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 assessment of the offeror's probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. 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.

More recent and relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort.

LSMA Section M 20 Aug 2013 Page 13 of 15

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.

LSMA Section M 20 Aug 2013 Page 14 of 15

4. Cost/price Factor

The Offeror’s Cost/price proposal will be evaluated based on the Total Evaluated Price as described in paragraph 4.4 below. Offers should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their proposal is reasonable, realistic and not unbalanced.

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)].

4.2 Realism. The Government will evaluate the realism of each Offeror’s proposed CPIF and FPIF costs/prices. 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 Offeror’s Basis of Estimate for XBM Sustainment (FPIF) and IV&V (FPIF & CPIF) efforts will be used to evaluate Cost/Price realism. 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 Technical Risk, the Offeror’s lack of understanding of the technical requirements of the applicable Technical subfactor. Additionally, for the CPIF effort only, the Most Probable Cost (MPC) will be computed, and will reflect technical and management risks identified during the evaluation of the proposal, and associated costs. Cost information supporting a cost judged to be unrealistically low and risk associated with the proposal will be quantified by the Government evaluators and included in the MPC for each Offeror’s CPIF effort. 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. Total Evaluated Price will be determined as a composite sum of prices for XBM Sustainment, Launch System IV&V, Transition Support, and Special Studies, as defined below in 4.4.1-4.4.4. 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, therefore no TEP adjustment is planned;

however if an offeror does propose significant additional GFP/GFE/GFS, the government reserves the right to request an assessment of fair rental value for these items, which will be used to adjust the TEP.

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

XBM Sustainment (Level 6) Base Period Ceiling Price XBM Sustainment (Level 4) Option Period 1 Ceiling Price XBM Sustainment (Level 1) Option Period 2 Ceiling Price XBM Sustainment (Level 3) Option Period 3 Ceiling Price XBM Sustainment (Level 7) Option Period 4 Ceiling Price

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 CPIF Most Probable Cost (proposed Target Prices adjusted to reflect assessment of realism) and SM3.x FPIF Ceiling Prices proposed (Section L102 Appendix D).

LSMA Section M 20 Aug 2013 Page 15 of 15

4.4.4 Special Studies Price: The proposed Firm Fixed Price for the maximum allowable scope (20,000 hrs for the base period and all four option periods) of Special Studies will be evaluated (Section L102 Appendix D) for source selection evaluation purposes only.

5.0 PRE-AWARD SURVEY

The Government may conduct a pre-award survey (PAS) as part of this source selection. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine each offeror's capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2.2.2 Launch System IV&V