SRP-4_Draft_Section_M.docx

DRAFT

Section M

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

This is a 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 Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. Contract(s) 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 of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost 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.

1.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

1.1.1 Basic Contracts

The Government intends to award up to a maximum of six(6) Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts for the Small Rocket Program (SRP)-4. Offeror proposals will be evaluated and contracts awarded based on Section M criteria.

1.1.2 Special Study

Each of the contractors awarded an IDIQ contract (maximum of six) will be issued a Concept Analysis Task Order (CLIN 0007) post award; not to exceed $30,000. The offeror will be awarded a special study task order to provide a DoD-specific user’s guide for their primary orbital launch vehicle if the prime award is in that group, in lieu of the award of a sample mission. If the prime group is suborbital an analysis special study will be awarded with specific requirements for this study in lieu of the award of a sample mission.

1.1.3 Sample Missions

The Government reserves the right to unilaterally award (contingent on funds availability and mission requirements) one or more Sample Missions to one or multiple contractor(s) awarded an IDIQ contract within six months from the date of proposal submission. A new proposal will not be requested for the Sample Missions unless; 1) the mission requirements change significantly affecting price, technical capabilities or both, or 2) funding is received after the six months proposal validity period.

1.2 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program. Unrealistic program commitments include, but is not limited to contract terms and conditions or unrealistically high or low in price/cost when compared to Government estimates.

1.3 Competitive Advantage from Use of GFP

The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an Offeror’s proposed use of GFP. Offerors shall identify GFP proposed, in addition to that specified in the GFP List at Appendix B to this solicitation in accordance with Section L, paragraph TBD. The Government will determine a rental equivalent cost of this GFP. This cost will be added to the Offerors proposed price in order to conduct price or cost analysis. The calculated price/cost will be used for evaluation purposes only.

1.4 Discussions

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and 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 be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.0 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The source selection will be based on an integrated assessment of offeror proposals.

2.1 Proposal Evaluation

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the following evaluation factors and subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical

(1) Subfactor 1: Mission Capability

(2) Subfactor 2: Mission Accomplishment For Suborbital Sample Mission both are required

For an Orbital Sample Mission both are required

Optional Sample Mission (Suborbital or Orbital)

Factor 2: Past Performance (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

Factor 3: Price/Cost

2.2 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

Factor 1 (Technical) is greater in importance than Factor 3 (Price/Cost). Within the Technical Factor, the Subfactor 1 is more important than Subfactor 2. An offeror must receive a Past Performance rating of acceptable to be eligible for award. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Price/Cost, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

3.0 Technical

The technical evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating.

3.1 Ratings

The Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating have equal impact for the rating of each Technical subfactors.

3.1.1 Technical Rating

The technical rating provides an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each Technical subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 1 – Technical Ratings, excerpted below. (modify if any Technical subfactor will be evaluated on an “acceptable/unacceptable”basis.)They focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

TABLE 1-TECHNICAL RATINGS

(Include the description of each Technical subfactor and how it will be evaluated for the technical rating. The narrative description for each subfactor should include 1) a statement of what is being evaluated (e.g., This subfactor evaluates…); 2) a clearly stated measure of merit covering what is necessary to meet the requirement covered by the subfactor (e.g., This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal addresses…); and 3) if applicable, the measure of merit should also state what is necessary to exceed the requirement covered by the subfactor (e.g., This requirement is exceeded when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates, substantiates…).

OR

(In addition to one of the statements above for any subfactor for which tradeoffs may be considered, you must also describe how you will evaluate the tradeoff (e.g., what other factors or subfactors will be considered and their relative importance between the evaluation factors/subfactors. It is mandatory to state in the solicitation how the tradeoffs will be evaluated.)

(In accordance with DFARS 215.304(c)(ii) and 10 U.S.C. 2436, consider including the following language as part of a subfactor in major defense acquisition programs, as defined in 10 U.S.C. 2430, when it is pertinent to the best value determination:)

(If there is a requirement to consider an offeror’s commitment to purchase U.S. manufactured capital assets in the SRD, SOO, or other program requirements document, it should be included as a part of another subfactor. If it is not a part of a subfactor, there will be no way to rate it for color or risk, since the color and risk ratings are at the subfactor level.)

3.1.2 Technical Risk Rating

Assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness (es), considers the potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The Technical subfactors will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2 – Technical Risk Ratings, excerpted below. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

TABLE 2-TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

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

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

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

3.2 Technical Factor

In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration for performance in excess of requirements. The Government may consider enhancements or other proposal features that have merit and/or exceed the criteria below if the enhancements provide benefit to the Air Force and are enforceable through the basic contract or are inherent in the Offeror’s processes.

3.2.1 Subfactor 1: Mission Capability

3.2.1.1 This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s processes and ability to meet critical mission requirements and design. This subfactor evaluation will take into account the Offeror’s demonstrated understanding of the SMC/LEX mission and their ability to tailor best practices to fit missions.

3.2.1.2 The government will evaluate the extent to which:

3.2.1.2.1 Launch Vehicle Design

Offeror proposes an effective detailed approach for designing a launch vehicle. Additional consideration may be given to an Offeror who demonstrates the use of flight proven and reusable designs that allow for reduced mission timelines and probability of success.

3.2.1.2.2 Manufacturing, Hardware

Offeror proposes a logical approach to build/acquire and integrate flight hardware and support equipment. Additional credit may be given to an offeror that proposes to use flight proven, reusable flight hardware designs/software and support equipment with minimum modification between missions and in-house system integration facilities.

3.2.1.2.3 Manufacturing, Software

Offeror proposes a logical approach to build/acquire and integrate flight software.

3.2.1.2.4 Test, Hardware

Offeror’s proposal demonstrates an Integrated Test Plan (ITP) with a realistic and effective approach for acceptance and qualification methodology to ensure hardware will meet mission requirements. Additional credit may be given for a proposal to use existing, proven, and/or in house test capabilities that provides benefit to the government.

3.2.1.2.5 Test, Software

Offeror’s proposal demonstrates an ITP with a realistic and effective approach for acceptance methodology to ensure software will meet mission requirements.

3.2.1.2.6 Mission Assurance

Offeror’s proposal demonstrates an effective process for internal mission assurance and support of the government mission assurance process.

3.2.1.2.7 Program Management

Offeror proposes a logical Program Management Plan which demonstrates effective processes that cover critical systems engineering functions. Additional credit may be given if the contractor is AS9100 or equivalent certified.

3.2.1.2.8 Small Business Subcontract Management

All proposals will be evaluated as to the extent of participation of small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns. The targets submitted in accordance with FAR 52.219-24, and Section L paragraph 4.2.5.1.7 will be incorporated into and become part of the contract.

a. (This paragraph meets the requirement of DFARS 215.304 and FAR 15.304(c)(5)) If the offeror is other than a small business, the offeror's Small Business Subcontracting Plan submitted in accordance with FAR 52.219-9, or Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan submitted in accordance with DFARS 219.702, and Section L paragraph 4.2.5.1.7 shall also be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror identifies and commits to the participation of Small Businesses (SB), Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), and Minority Institutions (MI) whether as joint venture members, teaming arrangement, or subcontractor. Failure to submit such a plan will render the offeror ineligible for award. The Government will not assign strengths for this criterion.

3.2.2 Subfactor 2: Mission Accomplishment

3.2.2.1 This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s approach and launch vehicle solution to the selected group of sample missions (suborbital or orbital). This subfactor evaluation will take into account the Offeror’s demonstrated understanding of mission planning and their ability to tailor best practices to fit missions. The government will apply these criteria separately to each sample mission proposed. Additional credit may be given for proposing an unpriced sample mission in a different group that also meets the criteria.

3.2.2.2 The government will evaluate each sample mission to the extent which:

3.2.2.2.1 Mission Requirements

Offeror’s proposal demonstrates an effective approach to a launch solution that meets the requirement listed in the Mission Requirements Document.

3.2.2.2.2 Technical Performance Measures

Offeror proposal demonstrates effective Technical Performance Measures and risk identification and mitigation plan.

3.2.2.2.3 Range Operations

Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a detailed and effective process for range operations and safety for the indicated launch range.

3.2.2.2.4 Integrated Schedule

Offeror proposal demonstrates a logical process that provides a sample mission Integrated Schedule that is realistic.

3.2.2.2.5 Orbital Debris Analysis

Offeror provides a sample orbital debris analysis and any other necessary analyses to demonstrate an understanding of AFI 91-217 requirements; including orbital debris and end of mission de-orbit requirements. Offeror demonstrates compliance with those requirements through the use of sound analytical technique (orbital sample missions only).

3.3 Past Performance Factor

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of “Acceptable” to be eligible for award.

3.3.1 Ratings

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 3-Past Performance Evaluation Ratings, excerpted below.

TABLE 3-PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

3.3.2 Evaluation Process

The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the solicitation requirements and a performance quality assessment of those efforts. 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; and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

(1) Recency Assessment. An 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 during the past three (3) (insert appropriate number) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(2) Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those contracts are relevant. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will also consider, joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor or teaming partner.[footnoteRef:1] The past performance information forms (PIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts: [1: Only the past performance effort which is related to the work the offeror is proposing to perform will contribute to the confidence assessment. Take, for example, an RFP for a contact to manufacture, provide logistical support, and provide user training for “System X.” If an offeror submits recent past performance contracts involving manufacturing effort which is “essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires,” but the offeror is not proposing to manufacture System X (i.e., another team member or subcontractor is proposed to perform System X manufacture), the offeror’s past manufacturing performance would not contribute to the System X manufacturing performance confidence assessment.]

TABLE 4-PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

(3) Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and/or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports an unsatisfactory rating on any evaluation element 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 recent, relevant efforts:

TABLE 5-PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT

3.3.3 Assigning Ratings

As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated past performance rating at the factor level (see Table 3). More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Past Performance rating than less recent effort.

3.4 Price/Cost Factor

TBD

DRAFT