CAMMO_Notional_Section_M_ver_2_0a.pdf

UNCLASSIFIED

SECTION M for 1

FA8823-13-R-0009 2

CONSOLIDATED AIR FORCE SATELLITE CONTROL 4

NETWORK (AFSCN) MODIFICATIONS, 5

MAINTENANCE, & OPERATIONS (CAMMO) 6

SUSTAINMENT CONTRACT 7

Evaluation of Offerors 9

9 May 2014 10

Section M for FA8823-13-R-0009

Contents 1

1.0 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD ................................................................................................. 4 2

1.1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD ..................................................................................................................... 4 3

1.1.1 Tradeoff ................................................................................................................................................... 4 4

1.1.2 Best Value ................................................................................................................................................ 4 5

1.1.3 Assessment ............................................................................................................................................... 4 6

1.1.4 Competition.............................................................................................................................................. 4 7

1.1.5 Discussions .............................................................................................................................................. 4 8

1.1.6 Mandatory Requirement .......................................................................................................................... 5 9

2.0 GENERAL EVALUATION INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 5 10

2.1 NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED ................................................................................................... 5 11

2.2 CORRECTION POTENTIAL OF PROPOSALS ...................................................................................................... 5 12

2.3 COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE FROM USE OF GOVERNMENT FURNISHED PROPERTY ........................................ 5 13

2.4 EVALUATION FACTORS ................................................................................................................................. 5 14

2.4.1 Source Selection Matrix ........................................................................................................................... 6 15

2.4.2 Unawardability ........................................................................................................................................ 6 16

2.4.3 Small Business ......................................................................................................................................... 7 17

2.4.4 Technical & Technical Risk Evaluation Process ..................................................................................... 7 18

2.4.5 Past Performance Evaluation Process .................................................................................................... 8 19

2.4.6 Price Evaluation Process ......................................................................................................................... 9 20

3.0 FACTOR 1 & 2 – TECHNICAL & TECHNICAL RISK ......................................................................... 10 21

3.1 GENERAL .................................................................................................................................................... 10 22

3.1.1 Technical Factor .................................................................................................................................... 10 23

3.1.2 Technical Risk Factor ............................................................................................................................ 11 24

3.2 TECHNICAL & TECHNICAL RISK SUBFACTOR SECTIONS ............................................................................. 11 25

3.2.1 Subfactor 1 – Operations ....................................................................................................................... 11 26

3.2.2 Subfactor 2 - Maintenance ..................................................................................................................... 12 27

3.2.3 Subfactor 3 – Sustainment ..................................................................................................................... 13 28

3.2.4 Subfactor 4 – Program Management ..................................................................................................... 15 29

3.2.5 Subfactor 5 – Scenario ........................................................................................................................... 17 30

4.0 FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE ...................................................................................................... 17 31

4.1 GENERAL .................................................................................................................................................... 17 32

4.1.1 Past Performance Factor ....................................................................................................................... 17 33

4.1.2 Recency Assessment ............................................................................................................................... 18 34

4.1.3 Relevancy Assessment ............................................................................................................................ 18 35

4.1.4 Past Performance Quality Assessment .................................................................................................. 18 36

4.1.5 Assigning Ratings .................................................................................................................................. 19 37

5.0 FACTOR 4 – PRICE .................................................................................................................................... 19 38

5.1 EVALUATION AREAS ................................................................................................................................... 19 39

5.1.1 Price Reasonableness ............................................................................................................................ 19 40

5.1.2 Unbalanced Price .................................................................................................................................. 19 41

5.1.3 Conformance to Budget Limitation ........................................................................................................ 19 42

5.1.4 Total Evaluated Price ............................................................................................................................ 20 43

5.2 EVALUATION PROCEDURES ........................................................................................................................ 20 44

5.2.1 CLIN Pricing Summary ......................................................................................................................... 20 45

5.2.2 Factory Compatibility Testing CLIN ..................................................................................................... 20 46

6.0 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION................................................................................................................ 21 47

6.1 DISCUSSIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 21 48

Section M for FA8823-13-R-0009

6.2 REVIEWS AND VISITS .................................................................................................................................. 21 1

6.3 PRE-AWARD SURVEY ................................................................................................................................. 21 2

6.4 SOLICITATIONS, REQUIREMENTS, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS ...................................................................... 21 3

Table 2-1: Source Selection Matrix ................................................................................................ 6 5 Table 2-2: Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings ................................................................ 7 6 Table 2-3: Technical Risk Ratings .................................................................................................. 8 7 Table 2-4: Past Performance Evaluation Ratings ........................................................................... 9 8 Table 2-5: Past Performance Relevancy Ratings ............................................................................ 9 9 Table 5-1: Ceiling Price Compliance Values by Option Period ................................................... 19 10 Table 5-2: TEP Calculation .......................................................................................................... 20 11

Section M for FA8823-13-R-0009

1.0 Evaluation Factors for Award 1

1.1 Basis for Contract Award 2

1.1.1 Tradeoff 3

This acquisition is being conducted in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation 4 (FAR) 15.101-1, Tradeoff Process, source selection methodology, as supplemented by the 5 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal 6 Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at 7 the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. 8

1.1.2 Best Value 9

A contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 10 15.3, Source Selection (as supplemented) whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s 11 requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other 12 information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation 13 factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government, under the Tradeoff 14 methodology. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the Air Force the 15 greatest confidence that it will best meet the requirements. This may result in an award to a 16 lower risk rating with a higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the 17 evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the 18 technical risk approach of the higher price Offeror outweighs the price difference. 19

1.1.3 Assessment 20

The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against 21 all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). The Government will award to 22 the Offeror who is determined, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the 23 best value to the Government. While the Government source selection evaluation board and the 24 SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is 25 subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. 26 Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best-proposed approach from a price, 27 risk, and technical standpoint. 28

1.1.4 Competition 29

The procuring contracting officer (PCO) has determined there is a high probability of adequate 30 price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the PCO will review 31 this determination and if, in the PCO's opinion, adequate price competition exists no additional 32 data will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2, Certificate of Current Pricing Data, 33 will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition the PCO determines that 34 adequate price competition no longer exists; Offerors may be required to submit certified pricing 35 data to the extent necessary for the PCO to determine the reasonableness of the price. 36

1.1.5 Discussions 37

The Government is reserving the right to award without discussions. If, during the evaluation 38 period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror 39

Section M for FA8823-13-R-0009 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/ responses to Evaluation Notices (EN) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered 1 in making the source selection decision. 2

1.1.6 Mandatory Requirement 3

All certifications and representations required by Section K of the solicitation must be completed 4 as of the date of contract award. In the event that a proposal fails to comply with this mandatory 5 requirement, the proposal may be determined to be unacceptable regardless of an otherwise 6 overall acceptable rating. 7

2.0 General Evaluation Information 8

2.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded 9

The Government intends to award a single contract as a result of this solicitation. However, the 10 Government reserves the right to make no award at all. 11

2.2 Correction Potential of Proposals 12

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any 13 deficiency. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the 14 Government. If an aspect of an Offeror's proposal does not meet the Government's requirements 15 and is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range. 16

2.3 Competitive Advantage from Use of Government Furnished Property 17

The use of Government Furnished Property (GFP) will not be a consideration during evaluation, 18 because the GFP listed in Attachment 10 to this solicitation is equally available to all Offerors. 19 No request for additional GFP will be entertained. 20

2.4 Evaluation Factors 21

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award 22 will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination that represents the best value to the 23 Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors 24 described below: 25

Factor 1: Technical 26 Subfactor 1: Operations 27

Subfactor 2: Maintenance 28

Subfactor 3: Sustainment 29

Subfactor 4: Program Management 30

Subfactor 5: Scenario 31

Factor 2: Technical Risk 32 Subfactor 1: Operations 33

Subfactor 2: Maintenance 34

Subfactor 3: Sustainment 35

Subfactor 4: Program Management 36 Section M for FA8823-13-R-0009

Subfactor 5: Scenario 1

Factor 3: Past Performance 2

Factor 4: Price 3

2.4.1 Source Selection Matrix 4

Factor 1 (Technical) and Factor 3 (Past Performance) will be evaluated for acceptability only. 5 Factor 2 (Technical Risk) will be rated at the subfactor level as either “Low,” “Moderate,” or 6 “High”. Among those Offerors rated “Acceptable” in both Factor 1 (Technical) and Factor 3 7 (Past Performance), a tradeoff will be made between Factor 2 (Technical Risk) and Factor 4 8 (Price), which are of equal importance to determine award based on which offer, represents the 9 best value to the Government. Technical Risk Subfactor 1 (Operations), Technical Risk 10 Subfactor 2, (Maintenance), Technical Risk Subfactor 3 (Sustainment), and Technical Risk 11 Subfactor 4 (Program Management) are of equal importance and each is individually more 12 important than Technical Risk Subfactor 5 (Scenario). Table 2-1 summarizes evaluation factors 13 and subfactors as well as the ratings that will be used to obtain an integrated evaluation (i.e., to 14 determine best value). 15

Table 2-1: Source Selection Matrix 17

2.4.2 Unawardability 18

Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall rating for the Technical or Technical Risk 19 Factor; however, an “Unacceptable” rating in any subfactor will render the overall proposal 20 unawardable. Any proposal with one or more “High” Technical Risk rating for any Technical 21 Risk Subfactor will render the overall proposal unawardable. Any proposal with an 22 “Unacceptable” Past Performance rating will render the overall proposal unawardable. Any 23 proposal with a Price Factor that is not reasonable or is unbalanced, or exceeds the target price 24 values by option period as identified in Section L, Table 5-1, will render the proposal 25

Section M for FA8823-13-R-0009 unawardable and may result in exclusion from the competitive range. The Price Factor 1 evaluation will yield a Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The evaluation shall address the Source 2 Selection Team’s (SST) identification of any weakness. 3

2.4.3 Small Business 4

All proposals will be evaluated as to the extent of participation of small business concerns within 5 the Program Management Subfactor. Offerors shall submit Small Business Subcontracting Plan 6 IAW Section H Clause H004; FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns; and FAR 7 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. 8

2.4.4 Technical & Technical Risk Evaluation Process 9

The Technical and Technical Risk ratings reflect the degree to which the proposed approach 10 meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an 11 assessment of the weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal. Each subfactor will receive a 12 single Technical rating and a single Technical Risk rating (unless stated otherwise), in 13 accordance with (IAW) Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, 4 March 14 2011, Tables A-1 & 3 respectively, excerpted below in Table 2-2 & Table 2-3respectively. Table 15 2-2 defines the rating assessment of Technical Subfactors, which is based on deficiencies 16 identified in the Offeror’s proposal. Table 2-3 defines the rating assessment of the Technical 17 Risk Subfactors, which is based on the deficiencies, weaknesses, and significant weaknesses 18 identified in the Offeror's proposal. The Offeror’s technical solution will be rated separately from 19 the associated technical risk. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the Offeror’s technical 20 solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Technical evaluations shall utilize the 21 ratings listed in Table 2-2. 22

2.4.4.1 Technical 23

Assesses the Offeror’s proposed technical approach, as detailed in its proposal, will satisfy the 24 Government’s requirements. There are many aspects, which may affect an Offeror’s ability to 25 meet the solicitation requirements. 26 Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Table 2-2: Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings 27

2.4.4.2 Technical Risk 28

Assesses the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed technical approach for the requirements of 29 the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, the 30 need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract 31 performance. 32

Assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of deficiencies, 33 weaknesses, and significant weaknesses, considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased 34 costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, or the 35 likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The risk rating considers the risk associated 36 with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. For any risks identified, the evaluation 37

Section M for FA8823-13-R-0009 shall address the Offeror’s proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not 1 manageable. Technical risk shall be rated using the ratings listed in Table 2-3. 2 Rating Description

Low Has 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 Can 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 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.

Table 2-3: Technical Risk Ratings 3

Assessment Definitions 2.4.4.2.14

Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a 5 combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful 6 contract performance to an unacceptable level (FAR 15.001, Definitions). 7

Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract 8 performance (FAR 15.001, Definitions). 9

Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of 10 unsuccessful contract performance (FAR 15.001, Definitions). 11

2.4.5 Past Performance Evaluation Process 12

The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent, relevant, and 13 quality of the record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract 14 requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance Factor level 15 after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is 16 relevant to the Technical Subfactors. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the 17 Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past 18 Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the 19 Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System 20 (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic 21 Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, 22 Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency 23 (DCMA), and commercial sources. 24

2.4.5.1 Past Performance Ratings 25

The Past Performance Factor will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis using the 26 ratings in Table A-2, Past Performance Evaluation Ratings, IAW DoD Source Selection 27 Procedures, 4 March 2011, excerpted in Table 2-4. 28

Section M for FA8823-13-R-0009

Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown.1

Unacceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Table 2-4: Past Performance Evaluation Ratings 1

Assessment Definitions 2.4.5.1.12

Recency, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has 3 elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a 4 time period during which past performance references are considered relevant. 5

Relevancy, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of 6 similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and 7 subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the 8 source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is 9 an indicator of future performance. 10

In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or 11 portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partners (including joint venture 12 partner(s)), or major and critical subcontractor(s) whose contract is being reviewed and 13 evaluated. The Past Performance Information Forms (PPIF) and information obtained from 14 other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The 15 Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing contracts (DoD 16 Source Selection Procedures, 4 March 2011, Table 4) excerpted in Table 2-5. 17

Rating Definition

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Table 2-5: Past Performance Relevancy Ratings 18

2.4.6 Price Evaluation Process 19

The price evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated reasonableness and unbalanced 20 pricing based on the assessment criteria below. For all Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) 21 types, the evaluation of options shall not obligate the government to exercise such options. 22

For each Offeror’s Price proposal, the Government will calculate a Total Evaluated Price (TEP), 23 and will evaluate for reasonableness, unbalanced pricing, and conformance to budget limitations. 24

1 In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the Offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements.

Section M for FA8823-13-R-0009

2.4.6.1 Total Evaluated Price 1

The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated for the basic contract requirements (basic award) 2 and all options. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise any option. 3

2.4.6.2 Price Ratings 4

The Price Factor will be evaluated for Price Reasonableness and Unbalanced Price, IAW DoD 5 Source Selection Procedures, 4 March 2011, paragraph 3.1.1. 6

Assessment Definitions 2.4.6.2.17

Price Reasonableness. The Government will use one or more of the price analysis techniques 8 defined in FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques, to determine whether an Offeror’s 9 price is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government 10 that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business (FAR 31.201-3, 11 Determining Reasonableness). Unreasonably high proposed prices, initially or subsequently, 12 may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition. An offer that is deemed to be 13 unreasonable will not be considered for award. If, after receipt of proposals, the Contracting 14 Officer determines that there is insufficient information available to determine price 15 reasonableness the Offeror may be required to submit additional information other than 16 pricing data. 17

Unbalanced Price. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains 18 unbalanced pricing. The PCO and SSA shall consider the risks to the Government associated 19 with any unbalanced pricing when determining the competitive range and in making the 20 source selection decision. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable Total 21 Evaluated Price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or 22 understated as indicated by the application of proposal analysis techniques. The Government 23 shall analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced line items. 24 CLIN prices will be compared and evaluated to assure that a logical progression exists as 25 related to price and quantity changes within each Offeror’s response to the CLIN structure in 26 Section B of Volume V. An Offeror whose proposal is determined to be unbalanced may be 27 determined unawardable if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government 28 (FAR 15.404-1(g), Unbalanced pricing). 29

3.0 Factor 1 & 2 – Technical & Technical Risk 30

3.1 General 31

The Offeror shall demonstrate their proposed technical approach for meeting the RFP 32 requirements specified by each of the five subfactors. The subfactors and criteria under 33 Technical will also be evaluated for Technical Risk unless stated otherwise. 34

3.1.1 Technical Factor 35

The purpose is to assess whether the Offeror’s proposal will satisfy the Government’s 36 requirements related to the evaluation criteria. Each Technical Subfactor will receive an 37 “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” rating. Any proposal with one or more “Unacceptable” 38 Technical ratings for any Technical Subfactor will be unawardable. IAW DoD Source Selection 39

Section M for FA8823-13-R-0009

Procedures, 4 March 2011, the determination of this rating is based on a Government assessment 1 of whether the proposed approach meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation. 2

3.1.2 Technical Risk Factor 3

The purpose is to assess the risk of the proposed Technical approach. Technical risk, which is 4 manifested by the identification of weaknesses, considers potential for disruption of schedule, 5 increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, or the 6 likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. For each criterion within the Technical Risk 7 Subfactors, the Government may assign weaknesses or significant weaknesses. The evaluation 8 will consider the Offeror’s proposal for mitigating the risk, if and when identified, and why that 9 approach is or is not manageable and appropriate. Subfactor ratings will not be rolled into an 10 overall rating for the Technical Risk Factor. 11

3.2 Technical & Technical Risk Subfactor Sections 12

3.2.1 Subfactor 1 – Operations 13

The criteria in this subfactor will be applied to evaluate the Offeror’s proposed technical 14 approach to performing AFSCN operations. The Government will evaluate the extent to which 15 the proposal meets the requirements for AFSCN operations of key PWS paragraphs. The 16 technical criteria are met when the Offeror provides detailed information, which addresses the 17 following areas: 18

3.2.1.1 Attain & Maintain Certified Operators 19

Proposal will be evaluated based on processes used and organizational efficiencies identified as 20 well as the Offeror’s understanding of external interfaces and their interaction with these 21 interfaces consistent with PWS. The Offeror’s proposal shall: 22

Demonstrate a clear understanding and approach to train, attain, maintain, and 3.2.1.1.123 certify AFSCN operators (PWS 3.2.1.1 and 3.9.1), to include: 24

a. Proposed coursework 25

b. On the Job Training (e.g., initial certification, recertification, proficiency) 26

c. Timeline to attain and maintain certification throughout the life of the contract 27

Demonstrate an executable implementation timeline to provide certified operators 3.2.1.1.228 by the contractor’s training program at completion of phase-in and throughout 29 the life of the contract to assure continued operations (PWS 3.2.1.1 and 3.9.1). 30

3.2.1.2 Execution and Support of Operations 31

Proposal will be evaluated based on approach and capability to execute Remote Tracking Station 32 (RTS) operations, mission communication operations, operations support, and training functions 33 consistent with PWS. The Offeror’s proposal shall: 34

Demonstrate a clear understanding and approach, through a detailed description, 3.2.1.2.135 of AFSCN operations, operational process for satellite supports, including how to 36

Section M for FA8823-13-R-0009 configure and operate all station equipment, and provide information to execute 1 the following elements (PWS 3.2.1.1, 3.2.1.5, 3.6.3.9, and 3.6.4.19), to include: 2

a. RTS operations and RTS mission communications, satellite operations support, to 3 include RTS Block Change (RBC) and Automated RTS (ARTS) operations: 4

a. Tracking satellites (e.g., Telemetry, Tracking and Control (TT&C)) 5

b. Manual correction for tracking satellites and satellite contact 6

c. Application of satellite scheduling info to AFSCN operations 7

d. Addressing satellite contact anomalies 8

e. Performing satellite tracking in multiple orbits 9

b. Operational Control Node (OCN) Operations at Schriever AFB and Vandenberg 10 AFB, to include: 11

a. Patch and test 12

b. Satellite communications 13

c. COMSEC 14

d. OSR System Administration 15

e. CISCO Works 16

f. WANIU Controller 17

g. Networking skills and certifications IAW DoDI 8570.01-M 18

h. Multi-circuit patch panels 19

i. Voice and data telecommunications equipment 20

j. DCC/OSR 21

c. Management of operations at RTSs and OCNs 22

Demonstrate a clear understanding and capability to map operational processes 3.2.1.2.223 to Offeror’s organizational structure and external interfaces (PWS 3.2.1.1). 24

3.2.2 Subfactor 2 - Maintenance 25

The criteria in this subfactor will be applied to evaluate the Offeror’s proposed technical 26 approach to performing AFSCN maintenance. The Government will evaluate the extent to 27 which the proposal meets the requirements for AFSCN maintenance of key PWS paragraphs. 28 The technical criteria are met when the Offeror provides detailed information, which addresses 29 the following areas: 30

3.2.2.1 Organizational Structure, Processes, and External Interfaces 31

Proposal will be evaluated based on processes used and organizational efficiencies identified as 32 well as the Offeror’s understanding of external interfaces and their interaction with these 33 interfaces consistent with PWS. The Offeror’s proposal shall: 34

Section M for FA8823-13-R-0009

Demonstrate a clear understanding of the organizational structure, roles & 3.2.2.1.11 responsibilities, decision authorities, and external interfaces, and locations of all 2 contractor functions and leadership (PWS 3.3.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3, 3.4.4, and 3.4.6). 3

Demonstrate a clear understanding and methodology for discovering, reporting, 3.2.2.1.24 and recording discrepancies, malfunctions, or failures; and how the process 5 includes planning, executing, and reporting as activities transition through the 6 different levels of maintenance and engineering functions while interfacing with 7 the government maintenance team (PWS 3.3.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3, 3.4.4, and 3.4.6). 8

3.2.2.2 Organizational Level & Depot Level Maintenance 9

Proposal will be evaluated for planning and preparation including associated timelines by 10 activity type consistent with PWS. The Offeror’s proposal shall: 11

Demonstrate a detailed approach and capability to respond to an Emergency 3.2.2.2.112 Depot Level Maintenance (EDLM), Urgent Depot Level Maintenance (UDLM), 13 and Maintenance Assist (MA) request in the timeframe required (PWS 3.4.3.1, 14 3.4.4.1, and 3.4.6.1). 15

Demonstrate a clear methodology and detailed approach to implement Level 1 3.2.2.2.216 (Organizational) & Level 2 (Depot) maintenance activities, as well as identify any 17 efficiencies and/or benefits (PWS 3.3 and 3.4). 18

3.2.3 Subfactor 3 – Sustainment 19

The criteria in this subfactor will be applied to evaluate the Offeror’s proposed technical 20 approach to performing AFSCN sustainment. The Government will evaluate the extent to which 21 the proposal meets the requirements for AFSCN sustainment of key PWS paragraphs. The 22 technical criteria are met when the Offeror provides detailed information, which addresses the 23 following areas: 24

3.2.3.1 Off-Site Repair 25

Proposal will be evaluated for planning and preparation including associated timelines by 26 activity type consistent with PWS. The Offeror’s proposal shall: 27

Demonstrate a sound approach and understanding of the scope of repair, 3.2.3.1.128 appropriate skill mix, and skill level to perform the applicable tasks (PWS 3.4.5), 29 to include: 30

a. Facility planning 31

b. GFE workstation usage and supplementation 32

c. Repair capability for legacy equipment challenges 33

Demonstrate a sound approach and methodology to use sub-vendor repair 3.2.3.1.234 sources to perform applicable tasks (PWS 3.4.5); where sub-vendor repair is 35

Section M for FA8823-13-R-0009 used, explain the process used: 1

a. To determine the differentiation between using in-house and sub-vendor repair 2

b. For developing new in-house repair capability 3

Demonstrate a clear understanding and capability to implement an executable 3.2.3.1.34 timeline to perform repair tasks on day 1 of contract start (PWS 3.9.1.3). 5

3.2.3.2 Obsolescence Management 6

Proposal will be evaluated for planning and preparation including associated timelines by 7 activity type consistent with PWS. The Offeror’s proposal shall: 8

Demonstrate a clear understanding and methodology to the logistics management 3.2.3.2.19 process as it applies to parts control, managing parts obsolescence, and planning 10 and implementation for Diminished Manufacturing Sources and Material 11 Shortages (DMSMS) (PWS 3.5.1.1, 3.5.2.3, and 3.6.2.5). 12

3.2.3.3 Systems Sustainment Engineering 13

Proposal will be evaluated for planning and preparation including associated timelines by 14 activity type consistent with PWS. The Offeror’s proposal shall: 15

Demonstrate sound approach and capability to plan and maintain configuration 3.2.3.3.116 management, specific to the CAMMO environment, as well as store, manage, and 17 implement Class I & II Engineering Change Proposals (ECP) to include 18 procedures/processes/controls for hardware (HW), software (SW), and firmware 19 (FW) (PWS 3.6.2.7, 3.6.2.10, and 3.4.6.2) for: 20

a. Defect tracking 21

b. Auditing 22

c. Unique site/side configurations 23

d. Baseline build 24

e. Environment and process management 25

Demonstrate sound approach and methodology ensuring processes are followed 3.2.3.3.226 and improved upon (PWS 3.6.2.10, 3.6.2.1, 3.6.2.5, and 3.7.2), to include: 27

a. Reliability, maintainability, and availability (RMA) analysis 28

b. Obsolescence 29

c. Software sustainment 30

3.2.3.4 Cyber Security and Information Assurance 31

Section M for FA8823-13-R-0009

Proposal will be evaluated for planning and preparation including associated timelines by 1 activity type consistent with PWS. The Offeror’s proposal shall: 2

Demonstrate… (PWS 3.6.4) 3.2.3.4.13

3.2.3.5 Modification Planning 4

Proposal will be evaluated for planning and preparation including associated timelines by 5 activity type consistent with PWS. The Offeror’s proposal shall: 6

Demonstrate sound approach and capability to plan and implement up to 8 3.2.3.5.17 concurrent modifications per year (PWS 3.7.1), to include: 8

a. Appropriate resource allocation 9

b. Requirements analysis 10

c. Site integration interdependency 11

3.2.3.6 Software Sustainment 12

Proposal will be evaluated for planning and preparation including associated timelines by 13 activity type consistent with PWS. The Offeror’s proposal shall: 14

Demonstrate sound approach and capability to plan and deliver software version 3.2.3.6.115 releases (reference PWS Table 3-6, Estimated Software Releases), which provide 16 mission assurance (PWS 3.7.2 and 3.6.2.11). 17

Demonstrate a clear understanding and approach on how Inter-Range 3.2.3.6.218 Operations Number (IRON) requests are received, error checked, and how to 19 respond to a request for a short notice release is handled. Explain how changes 20 are tracked. Reveal how government briefs would be supported, how installations 21 would be distributed and supported on site, and how unanticipated problems 22 would be solved (PWS 3.3.3 and 3.7.2). 23

3.2.4 Subfactor 4 – Program Management 24

The criteria in this subfactor will be applied to evaluate the Offeror’s proposed technical 25 approach to performing AFSCN program management. The Government will evaluate the 26 extent to which the proposal meets the requirements for AFSCN program management of key 27 PWS paragraphs. The technical criteria are met when the Offeror provides detailed information, 28 which addresses the following areas: 29

3.2.4.1 Key Technical Staffing 30

Proposal will be evaluated for planning and preparation including associated timelines by 31 activity type consistent with PWS. The Offeror’s proposal shall: 32

Demonstrate a clear approach and implementation timeline to hire, retain, and 3.2.4.1.133 negotiate contingency offers to obtain key technical staffing, detailed skill mixes, 34 and detailed skill levels to ensure the following tasks will be properly executed 35

Section M for FA8823-13-R-0009 and managed (PWS 3.2.1, 3.3.1.1, 3.6.4.7, and 3.6.4.19), to include: 1

a. Qualification/Certification requirements (PWS 3.2.1 and 3.3.1.1) 2

b. Cyber Security and Information Assurance (PWS 3.6.4.7 and 3.6.4.19) 3

Demonstrate a clear understanding of how to successfully accomplish CAMMO 3.2.4.1.24 requirements by identifying necessary competencies for key CAMMO positions 5 (PWS 3.2.1, 3.3, 3.4, 3.6.2, 3.6.3, 3.6.4, and 3.7.2). 6

Demonstrate a clear understanding and approach to the scope of work required 3.2.4.1.37 by identifying estimated man-hours down to the lowest level shown in the GWBS 8 for the base year and each option period of the contract. Complete in format 9 found in Section L, Annex B. 10

Demonstrate a sound approach to estimating required man-hours associated with 3.2.4.1.411 each CAMMO GWBS level, to include: 12

a. The estimated man-hours required to properly execute the tasks and requirements 13 of the PWS 14

b. The skill mixes required 15

c. Shift work where applicable 16

d. Staffing by individual site 17

e. Any planned integration of operations, maintenance (Level 1/Level 2), and 18 operations support 19

3.2.4.2 Small Business 20

Proposal will be evaluated for compliance with Section H Clause, H004, Small Business 21 Subcontracting Participation Plan, at 26% of contract value and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business 22 Subcontracting Plan consistent with PWS. The Offeror’s proposal shall: 23

Demonstrate a clear understanding and approach to ensure that small businesses 3.2.4.2.124 will meet the annual small business requirement of the total value of the contract, 25 with a sound Small Business Subcontracting Plan or Comprehensive 26 Subcontracting plan (large business Offeror’s only), and a Small Business 27 Participation Plan appendix, as applicable, that complies with the solicitation 28 requirements (PWS 3.6.3.11). 29

3.2.4.3 Public-Private Partnership 30

Proposal will be evaluated for compliance with public-private partnership percentage consistent 31 with PWS. The Offeror’s proposal shall: 32

Demonstrate a clear understanding and approach with a draft Partnering 3.2.4.3.133 Agreement (PA) and proposed draft Implementation Agreement (IA) that properly 34

Section M for FA8823-13-R-0009 identifies the workload planned with Ogden Air Logistics Complex (OO-ALC) 1 309th Software Maintenance Group (309 MXG), and also include an executable 2 approach for workload transition and training for personnel who will perform 3 AFSCN software depot-level maintenance (PWS 3.6.3.12), to include: 4

a. ESD 3.0 5

b. RBC 6

3.2.4.4 Transition Plan 7

Proposal will be evaluated for successful transition from the legacy contracts to the Offeror’s 8 organization, systems, processes, and procedures with minimal impact, delay, or disruption to 9 operations, remote site support, maintenance, or sustainment activities to ensure smooth phase-in 10 of all activities consistent with PWS. The Offeror’s proposal shall: 11

Demonstrate a sound approach and capability to successfully assume 3.2.4.4.112 responsibility of the CAMMO PWS within the designated phase-in transition 13 period, to include associated risks and mitigation approach. 14

Demonstrate a clear understanding and approach with a Phase-In Transition 3.2.4.4.215 Plan, to include associated risks and mitigation approach for transitioning 16 responsibility of the following: 17

a. AFSCN Test Bed (PWS 3.9.1.2) 18

b. Repair Line (PWS 3.9.1.3) 19

c. EDI (PWS 3.9.1.5) 20

d. GFE/GFP (PWS 3.9.1.7) 21

3.2.5 Subfactor 5 – Scenario 22

The criteria in this subfactor will be applied to evaluate the Offeror’s proposed technical 23 approach to performing AFSCN activities across multiple areas by responding to a scenario. The 24 Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal meets the requirements of the AFSCN 25 IAW key PWS paragraphs. The Offeror’s proposal shall: 26

3.2.5.1 Reserved 27

Reserved 3.2.5.1.128

4.0 Factor 3 – Past Performance 29

4.1 General 30

4.1.1 Past Performance Factor 31

The purpose is to assess whether the Offeror’s Past Performance will satisfy the Government’s 32 requirements related to the evaluation criteria. Each proposal will receive an “Acceptable” or 33 “Unacceptable” rating. Any proposal with one or more “Unacceptable” Past Performance 34

Section M for FA8823-13-R-0009 ratings for any proposal will be unawardable. In accordance with DoD Source Selection 1 Procedures, 4 March 2011, the determination of this rating is based on a Government 2 assessment. 3

4.1.2 Recency Assessment 4

An assessment of the contracts submitted IAW Section L, Volume III will be made to determine 5 if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing, or must have been completed within the 6 past five years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that 7 fails this condition will not be evaluated. 8

4.1.3 Relevancy Assessment 9

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information 10 obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those 11 contracts relate to the Technical Subfactors. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, 12 the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical Subfactors as 13 identified in Section L, Volume III, Table 4-1 (however, all aspects of performance that relate to 14 this acquisition may be considered). 15

4.1.3.1 Relevancy Determination 16

The Government will use the relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts. In 17 determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or 18 portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose 19 contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ), Past 20 Performance Matrix, and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the 21 degree of relevancy of past performance. 22

4.1.3.2 Relevancy Criteria 23

No single contract submission needs to meet all the definition bullets in a particular subfactor’s 24 (or factor’s) relevancy rating criteria block for the overall subfactor (or factor) assessment to be 25 considered relevant. The Government will use an integrated assessment to determine an overall 26 Relevancy Rating for each contract submission. 27

4.1.4 Past Performance Quality Assessment 28

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the 29 contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the 30 performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical Subfactors 31 (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The 32 quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information 33 available, regardless of its source. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse 34 findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than 35 satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources 36 without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider 37 the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of 38 corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be 39 considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. 40

Section M for FA8823-13-R-0009

4.1.5 Assigning Ratings 1

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors 2 will receive an integrated Factor assessment rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable.” 3 Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the 4 Technical Subfactors, the resulting assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an 5 overall evaluation of contractor performance. An “Unacceptable” rating will render the overall 6 proposal unawardable. 7

5.0 Factor 4 – Price 8

5.1 Evaluation Areas 9

The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated for Reasonableness, Unbalanced Pricing, and 10 Conformance to Budget Limitation. See paragraphs below. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be 11 calculated in accordance with paragraph 5.1.4. 12

5.1.1 Price Reasonableness 13

For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person 14 would pay in the conduct of competitive business [FAR 31.202-3(a)]. 15

For all CLINs proposed (Volume IV, Attachment PC2), the Government will use one or more of 16 the cost and price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1 to determine whether an 17 Offeror’s price is reasonable. 18

5.1.2 Unbalanced Price 19

Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced 20 pricing exists when, despite an acceptable Total Evaluated Price, the price of one or more 21 contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of 22 proposal analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether there 23 are unbalanced separately priced line items. CLIN prices will be compared and evaluated to 24 assure that a logical progression exists as related to price changes within the Offeror’s proposed 25 CLIN pricing, IAW Section L, Table 5-4. An Offeror whose proposal is determined to be 26 unbalanced may be determined unawardable if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to 27 the Government (FAR 15.404-1(g), Unbalanced pricing). 28

5.1.3 Conformance to Budget Limitation 29

The Government will evaluate whether each Offeror’s Price proposal is affordable by comparing 30 the maximum contract Government liability to the budgetary information included below and in 31 the solicitation Section L. The evaluation shall be made on the basis of a separate comparison for 32 each option period of the contract. An Offeror’s proposed prices exceeding the stated budget 33 limitations in any option period for any line item shown in Table 5-1 will not be considered for 34 award. 35 Under Construction

Table 5-1: Ceiling Price Compliance…