Draft Section M.pdf

PART IV – REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M

RSLP Mission Assurance Section M

Evaluation Factors for Award

Draft: 15 Jan 2020

REVISION HISTORY

REVISION DATE SECTION AFFECTED COMMENTS

Draft 15 Jan 2020 N/A N/A

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 Mission Assurance Services - Selection of an Offeror to provide Mission Assurance (MA) services will be based upon a best value determination.

1.1 Basis for Contract Award: This is a best value acquisition 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), and Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy memorandum dated April 1, 2016, entitled “Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures,” (hereafter referred to as DoD SSP) which will result in the award of a single Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. These documents are available electronically at the ACQUISITION.GOV website, https://www.acquisition.gov/browsefar.

The procurement has been designated a Small Business Set Aside. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Combined Technical/Risk and Cost evaluations. The Combined Technical/Risk Factor will be significantly more important than the Cost Factor. (Note: The term “Combined Technical/Risk” referes to evaluation Methodology 2 as defined by paragraph 3.1.2.2 of the DoD SSP.)

The award decision will be based on a best value tradeoff between Combined Technical/Risk subfactors and the Cost Factor. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will select the proposal presenting the combination of technical capability and cost providing the best value to the Government. This may result in the selection of a higher-cost proposal if the Government determines that the higher-priced proposal presents a technical tradeoff that provides more value to the Government. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

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 criteria, to represent the best value to the Government.

1.2 Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions. Therefore, all Offerors are advised to submit complete and comprehensive proposals that conform to all solicitation requirements and contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost and technical standpoint. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. If during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, and the Offeror is included in the competitive range, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. Clarifications and communications as defined in FAR 15.306 do not constitute discussions.

https://www.acquisition.gov/browsefar

1.3 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.

1.4 Initial Minimum Award Task Order: The Initial Minimum Award Task Order will consist of program management and financial management functions on a program-wide basis for the duration of the basic five-year period of performance for this effort.

This will include all general management functions for the MA effort, which must be accomplished regardless of the scope of ongoing Rocket Systems Launch Program (RSLP) activities. The minimum award task order is represented in Task Order Information Document (TOID) 0001.

1.5 Sample Task Orders: The Government reserves the right to award (contingent on funds availability and mission requirements) one or more of the sample task orders (represented by TOIDs 0002 through 0006) within six months from the date of contract award. A new proposal will not be requested for the sample task orders unless: 1) the mission requirements change significantly affecting price, technical capabilities, or both, or 2) funding is received after the proposal validity period.

1.6 Evaluation of Options: Offerors are advised the evaluation of options shall not in any way obligate the Government to exercise such options upon award or any time after award of any resulting contract.

1.7 Correction Potential of Proposals: The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. The judgment of such "correction potential," and whether the Offerors are offered the opportunity to modify their proposals, is within the sole discretion of the Government. By correction potential the Government means it will be evaluating each deficiency for the ability for the deficiency to be remedied and the time requirement necessary to complete that remedial action. This determination will be inherent to each subfactor evaluation and will not specifically be recorded unless the Government deems it necessary. 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.

1.8 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 unreasonably high or unrealistically 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.

1.9 Professional Employee Compensation Plan: The Professional Employee Compensation Plan submitted in response to the solicitation will be evaluated in accordance with FAR clause 52.222-46. The Compensation Plan will be relied upon as one of the elements in determining if an Offeror is responsible (IAW FAR 9.1) and will subsequently factor into the Contracting Officer’s determination of the apparent successful Offeror’s eligibility for award.

1.10 Number of Proposals: Each Offeror shall provide only one proposal. Alternative proposals or contingent offers will not be accepted.

2.0 Evaluation: Evaluation of this source selection shall follow the procedures detailed in paragraph 3.1.2.2:Methodology 2 of the DoD SSP.

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors: Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the RSLP Mission Assurance service that represents the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the following evaluation factors and subfactors:

Factor 1: Combined Technical/Risk Subfactor 1: Core/DXBM (Deactivated Excess Ballistic Missile) Subfactor 2: Launch IV&V (Independent Validation and Verification) Factor 2: Cost

TABLE 1: BEST VALUE MATRIX

BEST VALUE MATRIX

Factor Factor Elements Factor Ratings Factor 1:

Combined Technical/Risk

Subfactor 1:

Core/DXBM U/M/A/G/O

Subfactor 2:

Launch IV&V U/M/A/G/O

Factor 2:

Cost

Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Reasonableness Yes / No / TBD / Not Assessed Realism Yes / No / TBD / Not Assessed Unbalanced Yes / No / TBD / Not Assessed

U=Unacceptable / M=Marginal / A=Acceptable / G=Good / O=Outstanding Not Assessed=No Final Determination TBD=To Be Determined (this is an interim status used until a proposal is found to be technically acceptable)

2.2 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors: In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.304(e), Factor 1 is significantly more important than Factor

2. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), the Government has determined that Subfactor 2 is significantly more important than Subfactor 1. Each of the technical subfactors is significantly more important than Factor 2.

2.3 Factor 1 - Combined Technical/Risk: This evaluation shall be made using the DoD Source Selection Procedures Methodology 2: “Combined Technical/Risk Rating.” The Combined Technical/Risk Rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining ratings.

The Government will assign a Combined Technical/Risk rating, as described in Table 2A below, for each Subfactor identified in Table 1 above. This Combined Technical/Risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses in determining the rating.

Strengths, deficiencies, weakness and significant weakness are defined as follows:

Strength is 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 Deficiency is 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. See FAR 15.001 Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001 Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001

Combined Technical/Risk Subfactors - Each subfactor (Core/DXBM and Launch IV&V) will receive a Combined Technical/Risk rating as described in Table 2A below. This rating uses the risk descriptions defined in Table 2B below. If, after the Government’s consideration of correction potential (as discussed in paragraph 1.7), a proposal is rated Unacceptable in either subfactor, that proposal will not be evaluated further for the Cost Factor or considered for the Competitive Range;

therefore, making it unawardable.

TABLE 2A: Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

TABLE 2B: RISK DESCRIPTIONS

2.4 Evaluation Criteria for Combined Technical/Risk Subfactors:

Subfactor 1 – Core/DXBM - The Offeror’s proposal for the Core/DXBM

Subfactor shall be evaluated in the following areas as described.

Core Effort: The Offeror demonstrates an adequate approach that demonstrates an understanding of the requirements for the Core Effort described in TOID 0001. (Note: This Core Effort applies to the entire contracted effort as described in PWS paragraph 3.2 and is not limited to the DXBM portions.)

DXBM Aging Surveillance Test Recommendation Scenario: The Offeror’s recommendation in response to the scenario in Section L, Appendix B reflects an adequate approach that demonstrates an understanding of the requirements for the DXBM Aging Surveillance test planning process.

DXBM Sustainment: The Offeror proposes an an adequate approach that demonstrates an understanding of the requirements for the Sustainment effort described in TOID 0002.

DXBM Aging Surveillance: The Offeror proposes an an adequate approach that demonstrates an understanding of the requirements for the Aging Surveillance effort described in TOID 0003.

Subfactor 2 –Launch IV&V - The Offeror’s proposal for the Launch IV&V Subfactor shall be evaluated in the following areas as described.

STP-XS1 Kickoff Presentation: The Offeror‘s sample Kickoff Presentation reflects an adequate approach that demonstrates an understanding of the requirements for the STP-XS1 mission effort described in TOID 0004.

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have 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 Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may 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 Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which 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.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

STP-XS1 Mission IV&V: The Offeror proposes an adequate approach that demonstrates an understanding of the requirements for the IV&V effort supporting the Space Test Program Experimental Spacelift (STP-SX-1) mission as described in TOID 0004.

RSCD Mission IV&V: The Offeror proposes an adequate approach that demonstrates an understanding of the requirements for the IV&V effort supporting the Rapid Space Capability Demonstration (RSCD) mission as described in TOID 0005.

HVTI Mission IV&V: The Offeror proposes an adequate approach that demonstrates an understanding of the requirements for the IV&V effort supporting the Hypersonic Vehicle Test Initiative (HVTI) mission as described in TOID 0006.

HVTI Final Presentation: The Offeror’s sample Final Presentation reflects an adequate approach that demonstrates an understanding of the HVTI requirements for the effort described in TOID 0006.

2.5 Evaluation Criteria for Factor 2: Cost: The Offeror’s Cost proposal will be evaluated based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offers should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their proposal is reasonable, realistic and not unbalanced.

Insufficient details to support the determination of reasonableness, realism, and/or the absence of unbalanced pricing, initially or subsequently, may be a consideration for excluding the Offeror’s proposal from the competitive range and further consideration for award. The burden of proof rests with the Offeror. In the evaluation, the Government may use data, external to the Offeror’s proposal, such as, but not limited to, field pricing reports, industry information, Government estimates, same or similar DoD contracts, and commercial data. The Government-calculated TEP will be presented to the Source Selection Authority for the best value tradeoff decision.

Reasonableness – The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for reasonableness, where reasonableness is an assessment of whether the price is too high. For a cost to be reasonable, it must represent a cost to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business (FAR 31.201-3(a)).

Additionally, Reasonableness of an Offeror’s proposed cost will be evaluated using one or more of the cost and price analysis techniques described in FAR

15.404. A determination of unreasonableness will render the proposal unawardable. In addition, proposals that have been assessed to be technically unacceptable are ineligible for award and as a result, a reasonableness determination will not be made for technically unacceptable, unawardable proposals.

Realism – The Government will evaluate the realism of 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) and (3), and FAR 2.101). The Offeror’s Basis of Estimate (BoE) for Cost-Plus-

Incentive-Fee (CPIF) and Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) efforts will be used to evaluate cost 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, the Most Probable Cost (MPC) will be computed, and will reflect 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 and CPFF efforts. Over-proposing of unwanted tasks and associated costs will NOT result in a probable cost adjustment, but may result in an unreasonableness determination. No Government MPC adjustment will be made for proposals that are determined to be technically unacceptable. Finally, an offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of realism poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Unbalanced Pricing - The Cost Volume will be assessed for the presence of unbalanced pricing. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), unbalanced pricing may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and can be reason to reject an Offeror’s proposal. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated based on the application of cost or price analysis techniques. The Government will determine that an Offeror’s proposal contains unbalanced pricing if any of the Offeror’s proposed price variations between Contract Line Items (CLINs) are not sufficiently explainable. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed prices rests with the Offeror. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed costs for unbalanced pricing with respect to the Core and Core Option Period CLINs.

Total Evaluated Price - TEP will be determined as a composite sum of Total Proposed Price (TPP) for Task Orders 0001-0006, with the MPC replacing TPP for any Task Orders TPP assessed to be unrealistic. The Government does not anticipate significant use of Government-Furnished Equipment (GFE) and base/range support outside of that identified in the Base Support Agreement 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 which will be used to adjust the TEP.

2.6 In summary, to be selected for award, a proposal must:

1. Be determined at least Marginal (not Unacceptable) with respect to Combined

Technical/Risk in both subfactors; and

2. Be determined Reasonable, Realistic and Not Unbalanced with regards to Cost; and

3. Present the Combined Technical/Risk rating and TEP combination representing the best value to the Government based on a subjective, integrated assessment.

3.0 Contract Documentation: The proposal documentation contained in Volume III will be reviewed to ensure all required documentation was provided in response to the solicitation, and the provided documentation will be relied upon to facilitate the Contracting Officer’s determination of contractor responsibility and to determine eligibility for award. This will include the evaluation of potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest.

3.1 Small Business Contract Performance: The Offeror’s self-certification (Appendix E) will be evaluated in accordance with FAR clause 52.219-14. The Offeror’s self-certification will be relied upon as one of the elements in determining if an offeror is responsible (IAW FAR 9.1) and will subsequently factor into the Contracting Officer’s determination of the apparent successful offeror’s eligibility for award.

3.2 Professional Employee Compensation Plan (PECP): The PECP submitted in response to the solicitation will be evaluated in accordance with FAR clause 52.222-46.

The Compensation Plan will be relied upon as one of the elements in determining if an offeror is responsible (IAW FAR 9.1) and will subsequently factor into the Contracting Officer’s determination of the apparent successful offeror’s eligibility for award.

2.6 In summary, to be selected for award, a proposal must: