03. DRAFT Hemisphere Section M [dRFPv2].pdf

Space Domain Awareness & Combat Power (SDACP) Hemisphere Section M

FA8819-23-R-1000

UNCLASSIFIED

Hemisphere 3

Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity 4

Section M: Evaluation Criteria 6 for 7

Space Systems Command 8

Space Domain Awareness & Combat Power 9 and 10

Battle Management Command, Control & Communications 11

3 October 2023 19

Table of Contents 1

1. Source Selection .............................................................................................................................. 3 2

1.1. Basis for Award ........................................................................................................................ 3 3

1.2. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions ..................................................................... 3 4

1.3. Discussions............................................................................................................................... 3 5

1.4. Responsibility ........................................................................................................................... 3 6

2. Evaluation Factors ........................................................................................................................... 4 7

2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors ............................................................................................ 4 8

2.2. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors ......................................................................... 4 9

2.3. Rating Methods ........................................................................................................................ 4 10

3. Factor I: Technical ............................................................................................................................ 5 11

3.1. Subfactor 1: Staffing ................................................................................................................. 5 12

3.2. Subfactor 2: Quality Assurance Plan ......................................................................................... 5 13

3.3. Subfactor 3: Transition and Start-Up Plan ................................................................................. 6 14

3.4. Subfactor 4: Security ................................................................................................................ 6 15

4. Factor II: Small Business Participation .............................................................................................. 6 16

5. Contract Documentation ................................................................................................................. 7 17

List of Tables 19

Table 1. Evaluation Criteria ...................................................................................................................... 4 20

Table 2. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method ................................................................... 4 21

Table 3. Small Business Ratings ................................................................................................................ 5 22

1. Source Selection 1

1.1. Basis for Award 2

This is a source selection wherein the Government will select all technically qualified offers for the 3 Hemisphere Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) award based on an assessment of 4 acceptability/unacceptability. This approach allows the Government to establish an IDIQ pool of multiple 5 qualified contractors when awarding individual Task Orders. 6

The Government intends to award a minimum order to all Offerors who are deemed responsible in 7 accordance with the FAR 9.104-1, as supplemented and the DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 20 8 August 2022, whose proposals conform to the solicitation’s requirements as delineated in Section L and 9 are determined, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to be technically qualified according to 10 the Government. Cost/Price will not be evaluated for award of the IDIQ contract in accordance with 10 11 U.S.C 3206(c) and FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii). However, the Government reserves the right to make no award 12 at all. A technically qualified offer is considered one that meets evaluation criteria ratings of Acceptable, 13 per Section 2.1, in all Factors and Subfactors. While the Government source selection evaluation team 14 and Source Selection Authority (SSA) will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, 15 by its nature, is subjective and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire 16 process. 17

1.2. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions 18

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representation 19 and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors/subfactors. 20 Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being 21 ineligible for award. 22

1.3. Discussions 23

The Government in award without discussions and as such, Offerors are strongly advised to submit their 24 best effort as their initial proposal. If the Government determines that discussions are in its best 25 interest, they will be conducted consistent with FAR 15.306 and Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices 26 (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If 27 the proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or 28 exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the 29 proposal will be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award. 30

1.4. Responsibility 31

No award will be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of 32 responsibility. To be determined responsible, an Offeror must meet, at a minimum, each of the general 33 standards described in FAR 9.104-1. The provided documentation will be relied upon to facilitate the 34 Contracting Officer’s determination of contractor responsibility. 35

2. Evaluation Factors 1

2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors 2

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal as summarized in 3 Table 1: 4

Evaluation Factor SUBFACTORS RATING

Factor 1: Technical

1: Staffing Acceptable

Unacceptable

2: Quality Assurance Plan Acceptable

Unacceptable

3: Transition and Start-Up Plan

Acceptable

Unacceptable

4: Security Acceptable

Unacceptable

Factor 2: Small Business Participation Acceptable

Unacceptable

Table 1. Evaluation Criteria 5

2.2. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors 6

All factors and subfactors are of equal importance. 7

2.3. Rating Methods 8

The technical evaluation utilizes the Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable and Small Business Rating 9 Methods (DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 20 August 2022); see Table 2 and Table 3. 10

The subfactors Staffing, Quality Assurance Plan, Transition and Start-Up Plan, and Security will be 11 evaluated according to Table 2. The factor Small Business Participation will be evaluated according to 12 Table 3. A proposal is considered technically qualified if the Rating is Acceptable for each Factor and 13 Subfactor (Staffing, Quality Assurance Plan, Transition and Start-Up Plan, Security, and Small Business 14 Participation). 15

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation.

Table 2. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method 16

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

Table 3. Small Business Ratings 1

3. Factor I: Technical 3

3.1. Subfactor 1: Staffing 4

The subfactor is met when the Offeror’s Sample Staffing Matrix identifies resources corresponding to 5 the positions in ONE (1) of the three tabs of Attachment L1, Sample Government Reference Staffing 6 Matrix. Proposed personnel must currently be on staff at the Offeror’s company or be a current 7 subcontractor/teammate to the Offeror to ensure that the Offeror can hire cleared individuals with the 8 requisite skillsets and clearances. The Government will compare the proposed knowledge and 9 experience (column J) and proposed education/training/certification (column P) to the minimum 10 knowledge and experience (column I) and minimum education/training/certification (column O). 11

The Staffing subfactor will be evaluated as Acceptable or Unacceptable, according to Table 2. The 12 Staffing subfactor will be considered Acceptable if the proposed staffing matrix meets all criteria listed in 13 the Sample Government Reference Staffing Matrix, to include the stated security clearance 14 requirement. The Staffing subfactor will be considered Unacceptable if the proposed staffing matrix 15 does not meet the requirements in the Sample Government Reference Staffing Matrix and/or are not 16 currently on staff or a current subcontractor/teammate. A final rating of Unacceptable will render the 17 proposal un-awardable. 18

3.2. Subfactor 2: Quality Assurance Plan 19

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Quality Assurance approach. 20

The subfactor is met when the Offeror submits a Quality Assurance Plan that addresses requirements 21 listed in the Hemisphere PWS, Section 5.9.2 Quality Assurance Plan, 5.9.4 Non-Conformances, and 5.9.5 22 Performance Requirements Services Summary. 23

The Government is seeking a quality assurance approach that includes consistent surveillance of 24 performance, verification that customers are receiving the performance levels and personnel 25 qualifications required, verification that individual contractors are working together across multiple 26 contracts, towards a shared goal of accomplishing the SDACP and BMC3 missions, applicable quality 27 assurance best practices, and provides mechanisms to remedy poor performance. 28

The Quality Assurance Plan subfactor will be evaluated as Acceptable or Unacceptable, according to 29 Table 2. The Quality Assurance Plan subfactor will be considered Acceptable if the proposal provides an 30 adequate approach to address quality assurance, including roles and responsibilities, working 31 collaboratively with fellow support contractors from various companies, performance requirements and 32 assessments (Hemisphere PWS Section 5.9.5), performance reporting, and non-conformances 33 (Hemisphere PWS Section 5.9.4). The Quality Assurance Plan subfactor will be considered Unacceptable 34 if the proposal does not include clear and obtainable objectives to address performance requirements 1 Hemisphere PWS Section 5.9.5. A final rating of Unacceptable will render the proposal un-awardable. 2

3.3. Subfactor 3: Transition and Start-Up Plan 3

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed transition and start-up plan. 4

The subfactor is met when the Offeror describes their approach to ensuring a smooth transition of 5 services for up to 50 FTE with little to no loss of time and productivity and in accordance with 6 Hemisphere PWS Section 3.6. 7

The Transition and Start-Up Plan subfactor will be evaluated as Acceptable or Unacceptable, according 8 to Table 2. The Transition and Start-Up Plan subfactor will be considered Acceptable if the proposal 9 provides a clear, achievable transition and start-up approach for up to 50 FTE within a 60-day period to 10 include the items listed in Section L, paragraph 4.2.4.3. The Transition and Start-Up Plan subfactor will 11 be considered Unacceptable if the proposal does not provide for a clear, achievable transition and start-12 up approach and/or indicates a poor understanding of the requirements for transitioning to a new 13 contract for up to 50 FTE within a 60-day period. A final rating of Unacceptable will render the proposal 14 un-awardable. 15

3.4. Subfactor 4: Security 16

The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror has the appropriate mechanisms in place to facilitate 17 the hiring and retention of cleared personnel and that the Offeror has adequate security compliance 18 measures in place. 19

The Security subfactor will be evaluated as Acceptable or Unacceptable, according to Table 2. The 20 Security subfactor will be considered Acceptable if the proposal provides clear and achievable processes 21 for how the Offeror’s security office/staff will support the Hemisphere effort, to include meeting cleared 22 personnel requirements, having appropriate compliance measures in place, providing specific, relevant 23 performance on a contract with personnel clearance requirements at the Top Secret//Sensitive 24 Compartmentalized Information (TS//SCI) or Special Access Program (SAP) level within the past three (3) 25 years, and the Offeror has included Security Review results as defined in Section L, paragraph 4.2.4.4. 26 The Security subfactor will be considered Unacceptable if the proposal indicates poor understanding of 27 the requirements, the plan for security processes, maintenance, and security staff/office structure is not 28 clear or achievable, the Contractor does not cite specific, relevant performance on a contract with 29 personnel clearance requirements at the TS//SCI or SAP level within the past three (3) years, as required 30 in Section L, paragraph 4.2.4.4, or the Contractor does not provide evidence of two previous Satisfactory 31 ratings by the contract-designated Cognizant Security Authority. A final rating of Unacceptable will 32 render the proposal un-awardable. 33

4. Factor II: Small Business Participation 34

The Government will evaluate the content of the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Submission 35 specified in Section L. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s proposal assures the 36 Government the small business participation minimum requirement of at least 35% will be met at the 37 task order level. The Small Business Participation evaluation, as described in Table 3 below, provides an 38 Acceptable rating if the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Submission meets the objective stated 39 above and an Unacceptable rating if the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Submission does not 40 meet the stated objectives. A final rating of Unacceptable will render the proposal un-awardable. 41

5. Contract Documentation 1

The proposal documentation contained in Volume 3 will be reviewed to ensure all required 2 documentation was provided in response to the solicitation, and the provided documentation will be 3 relied upon to facilitate the Procurement Contracting Officer’s determination of contractor 4 responsibility and to determine eligibility for award. This will include the evaluation of potential 5 Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCIs). 6