A8_-_Sec_M_Eval_Criteria_11_Mar.pdf

ATTACHMENT 8

To

FA8818-15-R-0003

Operationally Responsive Space - 5 (ORS-5)

EVALUATION CRITERIA

11 March 2015

Table of Contents

Contents Table of Contents

1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

2 NUMBER OF AWARDEES

3 DISCUSSIONS

4 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS

5 EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL FACTORS

6 EVALUATION OF PRICE

1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This is a Commercial acquisition conducted in accordance with FAR Part 12; and, as provided in FAR 12.102(b), will utilize the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection method presented in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by DoD Source Selection Procedures, Appendix A, 04 March 2011 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 04 May 2011. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the proposal with the lowest evaluated price from among those meeting the technical acceptability standards. A contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation's requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. To be technically acceptable, the offeror must demonstrate that they meet the requirements within the RFP and provide evidence that shows a minimum of three orbital launches of the same vehicle as proposed for the ORS-5 launch service. Those proposals that meet the technical requirements will then be assessed based on cost.

FAR 52.212-1(c) is revised that the proposal acceptance period is 180 days. By submission of a proposal, offerors agree to this term.

Technical Volume: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for technical compliance with the Technical Factor and Subfactors. The Technical Factor and its Subfactors will be evaluated for technical compliance on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis (see Table 5-1). An Unacceptable rating in any Technical subfactor will result in an unawardable proposal.

The Government will award one contract to the Offeror with acceptable technical compliance and the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

2 NUMBER OF AWARDEES

The Government intends to award one contract for ORS-5. However, the Government reserves the right to not award a contract.

3 DISCUSSIONS

The Government intends to award a contract without holding discussions. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror responses to the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror's proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror's proposal may be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

4 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, small business subcontracting plan, OCI analysis results, other information required, representations and http://farsite.hill.af.mil/ certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors.

Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award.

5 EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL FACTORS

The proposal will be evaluated utilizing the ratings defined in Table 5-1.

5.1 TECHNICAL RATING

The technical rating provides an assessment of the acceptability of the Offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirements. All Technical subfactors, will receive one of the ratings described in Table 5-1 – Technical Acceptable / Unacceptable Ratings, below per

DFARS 215.300.

TABLE 5-1: TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE / UNACCEPTABLE RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

5.2 GENERAL

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the nonprice factors or subfactors.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Program Execution Subfactor 2: Predicted Performance Capability Subfactor 3: Launch Vehicle Demonstration

Factor 2: Price

5.3 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL

The Government's technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described above for each subfactor. Any subfactor rated "Unacceptable" will render the proposal unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

The offeror's technical proposal will be evaluated on the following subfactors using the criteria identified below:

Subfactor 1 – Program Execution: The requirement is met when the offeror demonstrates the capability to execute a viable approach to meeting the requirements of the PWS that assure the successful on-time delivery of the proposed launch service (launch date of 15 May 2017).

Additionally, the offeror must demonstrate that they are compliant, or are on a path to be compliant, with the regulations and policies required to be met to execute the proposed ORS-5 launch service. (Ref: Attachment 7, Section 7.2, Appendix 1 and 2)

Subfactor 2 – Predicted Performance Capability: The requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal provides evidence that the proposed launch solution meets the ORS-5 requirements for launch service capabilities as specified in the TRD. In addition to each requirement in the TRD being addressed in the proposal, additional analysis data is required to be provided in the Appendices to demonstrate how the offeror is meeting the orbit requirements with the required margin and how the offeror is meeting the Quasi-static, Random Vibration, Shock and Acoustic environmental requirements of the TRD. (Ref: Attachment 7, Section 7.3, Appendix 3, 4, and 5)

Subfactor 3 – Launch Vehicle Demonstration: The requirement is met when the offeror provides sufficient evidence that three successful orbital missions have been executed with the proposed launch vehicle. Sufficient evidence is the name of the mission, the date of the mission, target orbit and achieved orbit. New or modified subsystems can be proposed, but evidence is required that the subsystems are either flight qualified or at a CDR level of design maturity. For this subfactor, CDR-level design is defined as follows: The offeror will demonstrate that the subsystem design has been completed such that all requirements have been satisfied. The offeror shall present a final detailed design using drawings, analyses, and evaluation testing that shows that the design meets final performance and interface specifications, safety requirements, and mission objectives. The offeror shall identify planned qualification and acceptance tests to be performed to prove validity. (Ref: Attachment 7, Section 7.4, Appendix 6)

6 EVALUATION OF PRICE

6.1 GENERAL

The Offeror’s price will be evaluated for reasonableness and total evaluated price as defined below. The Government will use analysis technique(s) identified in FAR 15.404-1 to evaluate the Offeror’s proposed price.

6.2 PRICE EVALUATION CRITERIA

The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based on the assessment criteria below.

6.3 REASONABLENESS

Reasonableness of an Offeror’s proposed price will be evaluated using one or more price analysis techniques, see FAR 15.404-1. In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-3(a), data other than certified cost or pricing data may be required to support a determination of price reasonableness. If, after receipt of proposals, the CO determines that there is insufficient data available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions in

FAR 15.403-1 apply, the offeror shall be required to submit additional cost or pricing data.

6.3.1. TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE (TEP)

For the purpose of evaluation for award, the Offeror's total evaluated price will be calculated by adding the Offeror's proposed prices for CLIN 0001 and any Government Furnished Property proposed as represented on the Offeror's proposed excel spreadsheet.

The table below is provided for illustrative purposes only.

CLIN DESCRIPTION PRICE

0001 ORS-5 LAUNCH SERVICES

0002 DATA AND REPORTS NSP

GOVERNMENT PROPERTY

TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE