03. DRAFT Hemisphere Section M [updated 31 Aug].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

XX August 2023 19

FA8819-23-R-1000

UNCLASSIFIED

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. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Scale ......................................................................................... 5 10

3. Factor I: Technical ................................................................................................................................. 6 11

3.1. Subfactor 1: Staffing...................................................................................................................... 6 12

3.2. Subfactor 2: Quality Assurance Plan ............................................................................................. 6 13

3.3. Subfactor 3: Transition and Start-Up Plan .................................................................................... 7 14

3.4. Subfactor 4: Security ..................................................................................................................... 7 15

4. Factor II: Small Business Participation .................................................................................................. 8 16

List of Tables 18

Table 1. Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................................................................... 4 19

Table 2. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method ...................................................................... 5 20

Table 3. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method ....................................................................................... 6 21

Table 4. Small Business Ratings .................................................................................................................... 8 22

FA8819-23-R-1000

UNCLASSIFIED

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 Technical 4 Risk. This approach allows the Government to establish an IDIQ pool of multiple qualified contractors 5 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, who meet the capability gate stated in Technical Subfactor 1: Staffing (reference Section L 9 paragraph 4.2.1 and paragraph 3.1 of these Evaluation Criteria), whose proposals conform to the 10 solicitation’s requirements as delineated in Section L and are determined, based on the evaluation 11 factors and subfactors, to be technically qualified according to the Government. A technically qualified 12 offer is considered one that meets evaluation criteria ratings of Acceptable or better, per Section 2.1. 13 While the Government source selection evaluation team and Source Selection Authority (SSA) will strive 14 for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and therefore, 15 professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. 16

1.2. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions 17

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representation 18 and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors/subfactors. 19 Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being 20 ineligible for award. 21

1.3. Discussions 22

The Government may award without discussions and as such, Offerors are strongly advised to submit 23 their best effort as their initial proposal. If the Government determines that discussions are in its best 24 interest, discussions will be conducted consistent with FAR 15.306 and Offeror responses to Evaluation 25 Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection 26 decision. If the proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any 27 changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk 28 that the proposal will be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award. 29

1.4. Responsibility 30

No award will be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of 31 responsibility. To be determined responsible, an Offeror must meet, at a minimum, each of the general 32 standards described in FAR 9.104-1. The provided documentation will be relied upon to facilitate the 33 Contracting Officer’s determination of contractor responsibility. 34

FA8819-23-R-1000

UNCLASSIFIED

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 TECHNICAL/RISK RATING

Factor 1: Technical

1: Staffing Acceptable

Unacceptable

2: Quality Assurance Plan Acceptable

Unacceptable

3: Transition and Start-Up Plan

Acceptable

Unacceptable

4: Security

Outstanding

Good

Acceptable

Marginal

Unacceptable

Factor 2: Small Business Participation Acceptable

Unacceptable

Table 1. Evaluation Criteria 5

2.2. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors 6

The relative importance of each subfactor is as follows: 7

• Factor 1 (Technical) is significantly more important than Factor 2 (Small Business Participation). 8

• Within Factor 1 (Technical), 9 o Subfactor 1 (Staffing) and Subfactor 4 (Security) are equally the most important 10 subfactors. 11 o Subfactor 2 (Quality Assurance Plan) is slightly more important than Subfactor 3 12 (Transition and Start-Up Plan). 13

FA8819-23-R-1000

UNCLASSIFIED

2.3. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Scale 1

The technical evaluation utilizes a combined Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating scale. This 2 combined scale includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the significant strengths, weaknesses, 3 significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Risk considers a 4 potential for disruption to schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, and/or the need for 5 increased Government oversight. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal in terms of 6 strengths, deficiencies, and weaknesses, as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 20 August 7 2022: 8

• A significant strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed 9 specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the 10 Government during contract performance. 11

• A strength is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance 12 or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during 13 contract performance. 14

• A deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a 15 combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful 16 contract performance to an unacceptable level. 17

• A weakness is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract 18 performance. 19

• A significant weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of 20 unsuccessful contract performance. 21

The subfactors Staffing, Quality Assurance Plan, and Transition and Start-Up Plan, will be evaluated on 22 an Acceptable or Unacceptable scale; see Table 2. The subfactor Security will be evaluated on a color-23 coded scale, ranging from Blue/Outstanding to Red/Unacceptable; see Table 3. The factor Small 24 Business Participation will be evaluated with an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating; see Table 4. A 25 proposal is considered technically qualified if the Rating is Green or Acceptable for each Factor and 26 Subfactor (Staffing, Quality Assurance Plan, Transition and Start-Up Plan, Security, and Small Business 27 Participation). 28

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Table 2. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method 29

FA8819-23-R-1000

UNCLASSIFIED

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.

Reference: DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 20 August 2022

Table 3. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method 1

3. Factor I: Technical 2

3.1. Subfactor 1: Staffing 3

The requirement is met when the Offeror’s Sample Staffing Matrix identifies resources corresponding to 4 the positions in one, and only one, of the three tabs of Attachment L1, Sample Government Reference 5 Staffing Matrix. The Offeror must select only one tab and fill in the applicable columns (G, J, and P) for 6 the 10 positions with proposed personnel and solutions. Proposed personnel must currently be on staff 7 at the Offeror’s company or be a current subcontractor/teammate to the Offeror to ensure that the 8 Offeror can hire cleared individuals with the requisite skillsets and clearances. The Government will 9 compare the proposed knowledge and experience (column J) and proposed 10 education/training/certification (column P) to the minimum knowledge and experience (column I) and 11 minimum education/training/certification (column O). 12

The Staffing subfactor will be evaluated as Acceptable or Unacceptable, according to Table 2. The 13 Staffing subfactor will be considered Acceptable if it meets or exceeds the criteria listed in the 14 Government Reference Sample Staffing Matrix, to include the stated security clearance requirement. 15 The Staffing subfactor will be considered Unacceptable if the proposed staffing matrix does not meet 16 the requirements in the Sample Government Reference Staffing Matrix and/or are not currently on staff 17 or a current subcontractor/teammate. A final rating of Unacceptable will render the proposal un-18 awardable. 19

3.2. Subfactor 2: Quality Assurance Plan 20

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Quality Assurance approach. The Offeror shall 21 provide a detailed plan as to how quality assurance will be achieved through performance of the 22

FA8819-23-R-1000

UNCLASSIFIED

Hemisphere contract and will describe how quality will be enforced. The Offeror shall describe when 1 and under what circumstances quality assurance will be performed. 2

The requirement is met when the Offeror submits a Quality Assurance Plan that addresses requirements 3 listed in the Hemisphere PWS, Section 5.9.2 Quality Assurance Plan, 5.9.4 Non-Conformances, and 5.9.5 4 Performance Requirements Services Summary. 5

The Quality Assurance Plan subfactor will be evaluated as Acceptable or Unacceptable, according to 6 Table 2. The Quality Assurance Plan subfactor will be considered Acceptable if the proposal provides an 7 adequate approach to address quality assurance, including roles and responsibilities, working 8 collaboratively with fellow support contractors from various companies, performance requirements and 9 assessments (Hemisphere PWS Section 5.9.5), performance reporting, and non-conformances 10 (Hemisphere PWS Section 5.9.4). The Quality Assurance Plan subfactor will be considered Unacceptable 11 if the proposal does not include clear and obtainable objectives to address performance requirements 12 Hemisphere PWS Section 5.9.5 and risk of unacceptable performance verification is high. A final rating of 13 Unacceptable will render the proposal un-awardable. 14

3.3. Subfactor 3: Transition and Start-Up Plan 15

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed transition and start-up plan. 16

The requirement is met when the Offeror describes their approach to ensuring a smooth transition of 17 services for up to 50 FTE within a 90-day period with little to no loss of time and productivity and in 18 accordance with Hemisphere PWS Section 3.6. 19

The Transition and Start-Up Plan subfactor will be evaluated as Acceptable or Unacceptable, according 20 to Table 2. The Transition and Start-Up Plan subfactor will be considered Acceptable if the proposal 21 provides a realistic and no more than moderate risk assessed to the transition and start-up approach for 22 up to 50 FTE within a 90-day period. The Transition and Start-Up Plan subfactor will be considered 23 Unacceptable if the proposal indicates poor understanding of the requirements and high risk(s) within 24 an Offeror’s processes for transitioning to a new contract for up to 50 FTE within a 90-day period. A final 25 rating of Unacceptable will render the proposal un-awardable. 26

3.4. Subfactor 4: Security 27

The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror has the appropriate mechanisms in place to facilitate 28 the hiring and retention of cleared personnel and that the Offeror has adequate security compliance 29 measures in place. 30

The Government may assign a significant strength or strength for having identified successful 31 onboarding of cleared personnel at the TS//SCI level on a previous Government contract. The 32 Government reserves the right to assign a weakness if the proposal indicates poor understanding of the 33 requirements and there is high risk(s) attributed to the Offeror’s security processes. The Government 34 will evaluate additional strengths and weaknesses according to Section 2.3. 35

The Security subfactor will be evaluated on a scale from Blue/Outstanding to Red/Unacceptable, 36 according to Table 3 and must be assigned a Green/Acceptable to be considered technically acceptable. 37 The Security subfactor will be considered Green/Acceptable if the proposal provides an adequate and no 38 more than moderate risk assessed against the Offeror’s processes and policies to obtain and maintain 39 personnel security clearances, safeguard classified materials, and address security-related issues. The 40 Security subfactor will be considered Red/Unacceptable if the proposal indicates poor understanding of 41

FA8819-23-R-1000

UNCLASSIFIED

the requirements and there is high risk(s) attributed to the Offeror’s security processes. A final rating of 1 Red/Unacceptable will render the proposal un-awardable. 2

4. Factor II: Small Business Participation 3

The Government will evaluate the content of the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Submission 4 specified in Section L. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s proposal assures the 5 Government the small business participation minimum requirement of at least 35% will be met at the 6 task order level. The Small Business Participation evaluation, as described in Table 4 below, provides an 7 Acceptable rating if the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Submission meets the objective stated 8 above and an Unacceptable rating if the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Submission does not 9 meet the stated objectives. A final rating of Unacceptable will render the proposal un-awardable. 10

Rating Description

Acceptable The Government is confident that the Offeror will meet subcontracting goals at the Task Order level.

Unacceptable The Government is not confident that the Offeror will meet subcontracting goals at the Task Order level.

Table 4. Small Business Ratings 12