03. DRAFT Hemisphere Section M [dRFPv3].pdf

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

FA8819-24-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

2 January 2024 19

Table of Contents 1

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

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

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded ............................................................................................ 3 4

1.3. Minimum Order ............................................................................................................................ 3 5

1.4. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions ........................................................................ 3 6

1.5. Discussions .................................................................................................................................... 3 7

1.6. Responsibility ................................................................................................................................ 4 8

2. Evaluation Factors ................................................................................................................................. 4 9

2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors ................................................................................................ 4 10

2.2. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors ............................................................................ 5 11

2.3. Rating Methods ............................................................................................................................. 6 12

2.3.1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method ........................................................... 6 13

2.3.2. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method ............................................................................. 6 14

2.3.3. Small Business Rating Method .............................................................................................. 7 15

3. Evaluation Process ................................................................................................................................ 7 16

3.1. Phase 1: Gate Criteria ................................................................................................................... 7 17

3.1.1. Subfactor 1: Security Gate .................................................................................................... 7 18

3.1.2. Subfactor 2: Staffing Gate ..................................................................................................... 8 19

3.2. Phase 2: Technical/Risk Evaluation ............................................................................................... 9 20

3.2.1. Subfactor 3: Quality Assurance Plan ..................................................................................... 9 21

3.2.2. Subfactor 4: Transition and Start-up Plan ............................................................................. 9 22

3.2.3. Small Business Participation (Factor II) ................................................................................. 9 23

3.3. Step 3: Cost/Price Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 10 24

3.3.1. Evaluation Area Details ....................................................................................................... 10 25

4. Contract Documentation .................................................................................................................... 11 26

List of Tables 28

Table 1. Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................................................................... 5 29

Table 2. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method ...................................................................... 6 30

Table 3. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method ....................................................................................... 7 31

Table 4. Small Business Rating Method ........................................................................................................ 7 32

1. Source Selection 1

1.1. Basis for Award 2

This is a source selection wherein the Government is targeting an award pool of up to ten (10) 3 technically qualified offers for the Hemisphere Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract 4 based on a best value assessment of technical and price. The evaluation of proposals may result in an 5 award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, in which the decision is consistent with the evaluation of 6 factors/subfactors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical 7 approach of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source 8 selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all the source selection criteria in 9 the solicitation. 10

The Government intends to award a minimum order to Offerors who are deemed responsible in 11 accordance with the FAR 9.104-1, as supplemented and the DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 20 12 August 2022, whose proposals conform to the solicitation’s requirements as delineated in Section L and 13 are determined, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to be technically qualified according to 14 the Government. A technically qualified offer is considered one that meets or exceeds evaluation criteria 15 ratings of Acceptable or Green, per Section 2.1, in all factors and subfactors. While the Government 16 source selection evaluation team and SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection 17 process, by its nature, is subjective and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the 18 entire process. 19

This solicitation requests a single proposal from each Offeror at the IDIQ level. 20

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded 21

The Government intends to award up to a maximum of ten (10) Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity 22 (IDIQ) contracts for the Hemisphere program. Offeror proposals will be evaluated, and contracts 23 awarded based on Section M criteria. However, the Government reserves the right to make no award at 24 all. 25

1.3. Minimum Order 26

Each of the contractors awarded an IDIQ contract (maximum of ten) will be issued a minimum order 27 (CLIN 0001) for a post award conference; not to exceed $3,000. 28

1.4. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions 29

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representation 30 and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors/subfactors. 31 Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being 32 ineligible for award. 33

1.5. Discussions 34

The Government may award without discussions and as such, Offerors are strongly advised to submit 35 their best proposal. If the Government determines that discussions are in its best interest, they will be 36 conducted consistent with FAR 15.306 and Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final 37 Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the proposal has 38 been evaluated as Acceptable/Green at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in 39 the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the proposal will be 1 determined unacceptable and ineligible for award. 2

1.6. Responsibility 3

No award will be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of 4 responsibility. To be determined responsible, an Offeror must meet, at a minimum, each of the general 5 standards described in FAR 9.104-1. The provided documentation will be relied upon to facilitate the 6 Contracting Officer’s determination of contractor responsibility. 7

2. Evaluation Factors 8

The Government will make an award determination based on the evaluation process identified below: 9 Phase 1: Evaluate gate criteria (Proposals with unacceptable ratings in Subfactors 1 and 2 will not be 11 evaluated further) 12 Phase 2: Evaluate technical, small business, and cost proposals for Offerors who pass the gate criteria in 14 Phase 1 15

2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors 16

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal: 17

EVALUATION FACTOR SUBFACTOR RATING

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL

PHASE 1

1: Security (Gate Criteria) Acceptable

Unacceptable

2: Staffing (Gate Criteria) Acceptable

Unacceptable

PHASE 2

3: Quality Assurance Plan

Outstanding Good

Acceptable Marginal

Unacceptable

4: Transition and Start-Up Plan

Outstanding Good

Acceptable Marginal

Unacceptable

PHASE 2 (CON’T)

FACTOR 2: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

Acceptable

Unacceptable

FACTOR 3: COST/PRICE

Offeror’s Total Proposed Price

(TPP)

Government’s Most Probable Cost Adjustment (Dollars)

Government’s Total Evaluated Price

(TEP)

Reasonableness Yes / No / TBD / N/A

Realism Summarize the MPC Adjustments

Realistic Unrealistic

TBD

Unbalanced Pricing Presence Summarize any presence of unbalanced pricing

Yes No

TBD

Table 1. Evaluation Criteria 1

2.2. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors 2

The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: 3

• Factor 1 (Technical) is significantly more important than Factor 2 (Small Business Participation 4 Plan) and Factor 3 (Cost/Price). 5

• Within Factor 1 (Technical), 6 o Subfactor 1 (Security) and Subfactor 2 (Staffing) are capability gates and have no relative 7 importance for the best value tradeoff decision. 8 o Subfactor 3 (Quality Assurance Plan) is slightly more important than Subfactor 4 9 (Transition and Start-Up Plan). 10

• Factor 3 (Cost/Price) is more important than Factor 2 (Small Business Participation Plan). 11

• Factor 2 (Small Business Participation Plan) is an absolute requirement 1 (acceptable/unacceptable) for evaluation but has no relative importance for the best value 2 tradeoff decision. 3

2.3. Rating Methods 4

The technical evaluation utilizes the following rating methods: Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable, 5 Combined Technical/Risk, and Small Business (DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 20 August 2022). 6 The Security and Staffing subfactors will be evaluated using the Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable 7 Rating Method; the Quality Assurance Plan and Transition and Start-Up Plan subfactors will be evaluated 8 using the Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method; and the Small Business Participation subfactor will 9 be evaluated using the Small Business Rating Method. A proposal is considered technically qualified if 10 the Rating is Acceptable or better, as applicable, for each factor and subfactor. 11

2.3.1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method 12

The technical rating will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis at the subfactor level, 13 assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable. The Security and Staffing subfactors (capability gates) 14 will be evaluated according to Table 2. 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

2.3.2. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method 17

The Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the 18 significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining 19 technical ratings. Risk considers a potential for disruption to schedule, increased cost, degradation of 20 performance, and/or the need for increased Government oversight. The Government will evaluate the 21 Offeror’s proposal in terms of strengths, deficiencies, and weaknesses, as defined in DoD Source 22 Selection Procedures dated 20 August 2022: 23

• A significant strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed 24 specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the 25 Government during contract performance. 26

• A strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance 27 or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during 28 contract performance. 29

• A weakness is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract 30 performance. 31

• A significant weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of 32 unsuccessful contract performance. 33

• A deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a 34 combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful 35 contract performance to an unacceptable level. 36

The Quality Assurance Plan and Transition and Start-Up Plan subfactors will be evaluated on a color-1 coded scale, ranging from Blue to Red, according to Table 3. 2

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding

Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements, contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, 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 or significant 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 is un-awardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Table 3. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method 3

2.3.3. Small Business Rating Method 4

Rating Description

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

Table 4. Small Business Rating Method 5

3. Evaluation Process 6

3.1. Phase 1: Gate Criteria 7

3.1.1. Subfactor 1: Security Gate 8

The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror has the appropriate mechanisms in place to facilitate 9 the hiring and retention of cleared personnel and that the Offeror has adequate security compliance 10 measures in place. 11

The Security subfactor will be evaluated as Acceptable or Unacceptable, according to Table 2. The 12 Security subfactor will be considered Acceptable if 13

• the proposal provides clear and achievable processes for how the Offeror’s security office/staff 14 will support the Hemisphere effort, to include meeting cleared personnel requirements and 15 having appropriate compliance measures in place; 16

• the proposal provides providing specific, relevant performance (specific, relevant performance is 1 defined as performance on a contract with personnel clearance requirements at the Top 2 Secret//Sensitive Compartmentalized Information (TS//SCI) or Special Access Program (SAP) 3 level within the past three (3) years); 4

• and the proposal includes Security Review results as defined in Section L, paragraph 4.2.4.1. 5

The Security subfactor will be considered Unacceptable if the proposal indicates poor understanding of 6 the requirements; the plan for security processes, maintenance, and security staff/office structure is not 7 clear or achievable; the Contractor does not cite specific, relevant performance on a contract with 8 personnel clearance requirements at the TS//SCI or SAP level within the past three (3) years; the 9 Contractor does not have an appointed Facility Security Officer (FSO) which will be verified by the 10 Government based on the Contractor’s cage code; or the Contractor does not provide evidence of at 11 least two previous Satisfactory ratings by the contract-designated Cognizant Security Authority 12 immediately prior to proposal submittal. The proposal will not be evaluated further if the Offeror 13 receives an unacceptable rating in this subfactor. 14

3.1.2. Subfactor 2: Staffing Gate 15

The subfactor is met when the Offeror’s Sample Staffing Matrix provides ten (10) filled-in positions out 16 of the fifteen (15) available positions in ONE (1) of the three tabs of Attachment L1, Sample Government 17 Reference Staffing Matrix. The Offeror shall provide only ten (10) positions corresponding to ONE (1) 18 tab; if more positions are provided, the Government will only evaluate the first ten (10) positions listed 19 in the Offeror’s Sample Staffing Matrix. Proposed personnel must 1) currently be on staff at the 20 Offeror’s company or 2) currently be on staff at a company that the prime Offeror has subcontracted 21 with within the past year to ensure that the Offeror has cleared individuals with the requisite skillsets 22 and clearances1. The Government will compare the proposed knowledge and experience (column I) and 23 proposed education/training/certification (column O) to the minimum knowledge and experience 24

1The Government understands that proposed personnel may not perform on the Hemisphere contract. However, the Government is seeking companies who have cleared personnel on staff with the requisite skillsets and clearances or have worked with companies who have done so in the past. The following are examples of allowable proposed personnel.

Ex1: Sam currently works for Sub and has been a Sub1 employee for two months. Sub has been a subcontractor of Offeror since Oct 2022. Because Sub has been a subcontractor with Offeror within the past year, Sam can be included in the proposal.

Ex2: Sarah works for Sub and has been a Sub employee for two months. Sub was a subcontractor of Offeror from Jan 2022 – Aug 2023. Even though Sub is not a current subcontractor of Offeror, because Sub has been a subcontractor of Offeror within the past year, Sarah can be included in the proposal.

Ex3: Jenny works for Prime. Sub is a subcontractor of Prime and would like to submit a proposal for the Hemisphere IDIQ. Jenny can be included in the proposal because Sub has subcontracted with Prime within the past year.

Ex4: Adam works for Sub. Prime had a subcontract relationship with Sub that ended in 2020. Prime cannot use Adam in their proposal because the contractual relationship ended over a year ago.

(column H) and minimum education/training/certification (column N). The Government will also verify 1 clearances. 2

The Staffing subfactor will be evaluated according to Table 2. The Staffing subfactor will be considered 3 Acceptable if all ten (10) positions in the proposed staffing matrix meet or exceed all criteria listed in the 4 Sample Government Reference Staffing Matrix, to include the stated security clearance requirement. 5 Security clearances listed must reflect the active security clearance as of the proposal submittal date. A 6 security clearance that is in process and/or incomplete as of the proposal submittal date does not meet 7 the requirement. The proposal will not be evaluated further if the Offeror receives an unacceptable 8 rating in this subfactor. 9

3.2. Phase 2: Technical/Risk Evaluation 10

3.2.1. Subfactor 3: Quality Assurance Plan 11

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Quality Assurance approach. 12

The subfactor is met when the Offeror demonstrates a Quality Assurance Plan approach that meets or 13 exceeds requirements listed in the Quality Assurance Checklist. 14

The Quality Assurance Plan subfactor will be evaluated according to Table 3. The Quality Assurance Plan 15 subfactor will be considered Green if the proposal provides an adequate approach to address quality 16 assurance, including all items required by the Quality Assurance Checklist and Section L, section 4.2.4.3. 17

The Government may assign a weakness, significant weakness, or a deficiency for inadequately 18 addressed items listed in the Quality Assurance Checklist. 19

The Government may assign strengths for Quality Assurance approaches in the Quality Assurance 20 Checklist items 1.3.2 (PWS 5.9.5, Table 1, Item 3), 3.2, and 3.3. 21

3.2.2. Subfactor 4: Transition and Start-up Plan 22

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed transition and start-up plan. 23

The subfactor is met when the Offeror’s approach meets or exceeds the requirements, ensuring a 24 smooth transition of services for 50 FTE with little to no loss of time and productivity and in accordance 25 with Hemisphere PWS Section 3.6. 26

The Transition and Start-Up Plan subfactor will be evaluated according to Table 3. The Transition and 27 Start-Up Plan subfactor will be considered Green if the proposal provides a clear, achievable transition 28 and start-up approach for 50 FTE within a 60-day period and addresses all items listed in Section L, 29 Section 4.2.4.4 and Table 4.2.4.4. 30

An example of an area where the Government may assign a strength, but is not limited to, is if the 31 proposal provides examples of how a prime or sub has successfully transitioned on similar efforts with 32 TS//SCI or SAP requirements in the past ten (10) years. 33

The Government may assign a weakness, significant weakness, or a deficiency for inadequately 34 addressed items listed in Table 4.2.4.4 of Section L. 35

3.2.3. Small Business Participation (Factor II) 36

The Government will evaluate the content of the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Submission 37 specified in Section L. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s proposal assures the 38

Government the small business participation minimum requirement of at least 35% of total (proposed) 1 contract value will be met at the task order level. The Small Business Participation evaluation, as 2 described in Table 3, provides an Acceptable rating if the Offeror’s Small Business Participation 3 Submission meets the objective stated above and an Unacceptable rating if the Offeror’s Small Business 4 Participation Submission does not meet the stated objectives. A final rating of Unacceptable will render 5 the proposal un-awardable. 6

3.3. Step 3: Cost/Price Evaluation 7

The Offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness, realism, and unbalanced 8 pricing. In the evaluation, the Government may use data, external to the Offeror’s proposal, such as, 9 but not limited to, field pricing reports, industry information, Government estimates, same or similar 10 DoD contracts, and commercial data. The Government’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be presented to 11 the Source Selection Authority for the best value trade-off decision. 12

3.3.1. Evaluation Area Details 13

The proposal must contain sufficient details for the Government evaluation of the following areas: 14

• Reasonableness – 15 o The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for reasonableness, where 16 reasonableness is an assessment of whether the proposed amounts are too 17 high. The amounts are reasonable if, in their nature and amount, they do not 18 exceed that amount which would be paid by a prudent person in the conduct of 19 competitive business. Reference FAR 31.201-3. 20 o In conducting the reasonableness analysis, the Government will use one or 21 more analysis techniques described in, but not limited to, FAR 15.404-1. 22 o A determination of unreasonableness will render the proposal un-awardable. 23 o In addition, proposals that have been assessed to be technically unacceptable 24 are ineligible for award and as a result, a reasonableness determination will not 25 be made for technically unacceptable, un-awardable proposals. 26

• Realism – 27 o The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for cost realism; the assessment will 28 analyze whether the proposed rates are too low. The direct labor rates will be 29 considered too low if they are lower than the rate floor established in 30 Attachment L3. The indirect rates will be considered too low if they are lower 31 than the supporting documentation in the Offeror’s proposal. 32 o Any proposed cost element may be adjusted based upon the Government 33 analysis of each proposed cost element. Cost adjustments will also consider 34 missing costs that will likely be incurred for the contract with the proposed 35 solution. It is the intent that all cost adjustments will be upward; there will not 36 be any downward adjustments. The cost adjustments will result in the 37 Government’s Most Probable Cost that will become part of the TEP calculation 38 for best value consideration 39

• Unbalanced Pricing – 1 o The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for the presence of Unbalanced 2 Pricing. Unbalanced Pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total proposed 3 price, the price of one or more wrap rates is significantly over or understated as 4 indicated by the application of cost analysis techniques. 5 o An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of 6 balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. 7

• Compliance with RFP Instructions for Fixed Fee – The proposed Fixed Fee will be 8 compared to the Not-To-Exceed rate of 10%. If the proposed Fixed Fee rate exceeds the 9 Not-To-Exceed rate, the proposal will be determined to be un-awardable. 10

• Total Proposed Price (TPP) – The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for accuracy in 11 calculating the proposed TPP and for compliance with the instructions for calculating 12 the proposed TPP. 13

• Total Evaluated Price (TEP) – The Government will adjust the proposed price as 14 necessary for accuracy in the proposed calculations, and the Government-calculated TEP 15 will be used in the best value decision process. 16

• Insufficient Details – To support the determination of reasonableness, realism or non-17 presence of unbalanced pricing, initially or subsequently, may be a consideration for 18 excluding the Offeror’s proposal from the competitive range and further consideration 19 for award. The burden of proof rests with the Offeror. 20

• Consistency - The Government will compare the information the Offeror provides in 21 Section B of the Model Contract to the information the Offeror provides in Volume III to 22 ensure the information in the former is identical to that in the latter. The Government 23 reserves the right to determine that, if any inconsistency exists between the Model 24 Contract and Cost Volume III, the Model Contract will take precedence. In the event 25 there is inconsistency, the value in the Model Contract will be used in the Best Value 26 Tradeoff decision. 27

4. Contract Documentation 28

The proposal documentation contained in Volume 4 will be reviewed to ensure all required 29 documentation was provided in response to the solicitation, and the provided documentation will be 30 relied upon to facilitate the Contracting Officer’s determination of contractor responsibility and to 31 determine eligibility for award. This will include the evaluation of potential Organizational Conflicts of 32 Interest (OCIs) and professional employee compensation. 33