Attachment_2_ASLON_SRP-O_Section_M_RFI_Final_footer_corrected.docx

PART IV – REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FA8818-18-R-0011

Section M

FOR

SMALL ROCKET PROGRAM-ORBITAL (SRP-O)

Mission: Agile Small Launch Operational Normalizer (ASLON)-45

Evaluation Factors for Award

Basic: DD MMM YYYY

SECTION M

Evaluation Factors for Award Basis for Contract Award – The Government intends to award a Small Rocket Program Orbital (SRP-O) contract to provide orbital launch services in support of the ASLON-45 mission requirements. Offeror proposals will be evaluated and contracts awarded based on this Section M criteria.

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 and Price factors. 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 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 approach of the higher priced 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; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

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 are not limited to contract terms and conditions or an unrealistically low price for the proposed technical solution.

Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions; however, 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. 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.

Evaluation Factors – The source selection will be based on an integrated assessment of Offerors’ proposals.

Proposal Evaluation: Each proposal will be evaluated based upon an integrated assessment of the following evaluation factors:

Factor 1: Technical Factor 2: Price Relative Importance of Factors: Factor 1 (Technical) is significantly more important than Factor 2 (Price).

Table 2-1: Source Selection Decision Matrix for Technical and Price Factor

Rating Technical Risk Rating

Factor 2: Price

O=Outstanding / G=Good / A=Acceptable / M=Marginal / U=Unacceptable H=High / M=Moderate / L=Low / U=Unacceptable TBD=To Be Determined (this is an interim status used until a proposal is found to be technically acceptable) Technical Factor Technical Rating: The technical rating evaluates the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. The Technical Factor will receive a color rating based on the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2A – Technical Rating Method, excerpted in Table 3-1 below. The color rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the Technical Factor requirements. The following definitions support Table 3-1:

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. Note: The Government reserves the right to incorporate a “Strength” process or feature into the final contract requirements.

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.

Table 31: TECHNICAL RATING METHOD

Technical Risk 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, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The Technical Factor will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 3-2: Technical Risk Rating Method, excerpted below. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the proposed technical approach for meeting the requirement. The following definitions support Table 3-2:

No Weakness is the absence of flaws in the proposal.

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.

Table 3-2: TECHNICAL RISK RATING METHOD

Technical Criteria: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for the extent to which the following is addressed:

Program Management (Oral and Visual) Work Breakdown Structure (WBS): Offeror provides a detailed WBS of the entire work required to accomplish the mission.

Integrated Master Schedule (IMS): Offeror demonstrates an IMS that defines the order, duration and dependencies of the work items within the proposed WBS.

The proposed IMS meets the schedule requirement in the MRD.

Launch Solution Design (Oral and Visual) Launch Solution Design: Offeror provides a design that describes the systems/subsystems of the offeror’s LS.

Support Equipment: Support equipment is described in detail.

Facilities: Facilities are described in detail.

Processes: Processes are described in detail.

Design Changes: Mission unique design changes required to meet the requirements of this solicitation are clearly identified.

Design Performance: The LS design performance is capable of delivering the payload to the required orbit.

Launch Solution Maturity: Offeror demonstrates the proposed LS meets the flight history requirements in the MRD.

Flight History Failures: Flight history failures demonstrate corrective action to prevent recurrence.

Flight History Strength: The offeror may earn a strength by demonstrating a LS which exceeds the flight history requirements.

Configuration Differences: Configuration differences from the proposed LS are identified throughout the launch history.

Integration and Test: For subsystems with zero flight history, a design analysis demonstrates how those subsystems will be integrated and tested to provide the proposed performance.

Performance Test: For subsystems with zero flight history, a maturity assessment verifies tested subsystem performance.

Mission Design (Oral and Visual) Mechanical Design Interface: Offeror demonstrates the launch solution is capable of meeting space vehicle mechanical interface requirementsas stated in the MRD.

Electrical Design Interface: Offeror demonstrates the launch solution is capable of meeting space vehicle electrical interface requirements as stated in the MRD.

Environmental Design Interface: Offeror adequately demonstrates the launch solution is capable of meeting space vehicle environmental interface requirements as stated in the MRD.

Launch Authority: Offeror demonstrates an effective plan to coordinate launch operations with the cognizant authority. The offeror may earn a strength and indicate a thorough approach by demonstrating a plan to coordinate launch operations that has previously been exercised with the cognizant authority.

Mission Assurance Plan: Offeror demonstrates amission assurance approach for delivering an flightworthy launch solution.

Price Factor – The Offeror’s price proposal must contain sufficient details for the Government evaluation in the area of reasonableness and total proposed price.

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 Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be presented to the Source Selection Authority for the trade-off decision.

Evaluation Area Details Reasonableness: The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for reasonableness, where reasonableness is an assessment of whether the price is too high. The price is reasonable, if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that amount which would be paid by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business (FAR 31.201-3).

In conducting the reasonableness analysis, the Government will use one or more analysis techniques described in, but not limited to, FAR 15.404-1. If after receipt of proposals the PCO determines that there is insufficient data available to determine price reasonableness, the Offeror shall be required to submit additional pricing data.

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.

The Offeror’s proposal must be clear and convincing in demonstrating that the prices reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with various elements of the Offeror’s technical proposal (FAR 15.404-1(d)).

Total Proposed Price (TPP): The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for accuracy in calculating the proposed TPP and for compliance with the instructions for calculating the TPP.

Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The Government will adjust the TPP as shown below to incorporate the Option Mission TPP. The Government-calculated TEP will be used in the best value decision process for evaluation purposes only.

Table 4-1: Total Evaluated Price

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 (OCIs).

SECTION M FA8818-18-R-0011

PAGE M - 4 of 7