Attachment_9_-_Draft_RISE_Section_M__26_Mar_18.pdf

Source Selection Sensitive – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

R&D INTEGRATED SPACE EXPERIMENTS (RISE) CONTRACT

FA9453-18-R-0003, ATTACHMENT 9

SECTION M, EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

26 MARCH 2018

M-I - SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

NOTICE: Pursuant to FAR 52.252-1, "SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE," the following provisions are incorporated herein by reference:

A. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (48 CFR CHAPTER 1) SOLICITATION

PROVISIONS:

PARAGRAPH TITLE DATE

52.232-15 PROGRESS PAYMENTS NOT INCLUDED APR 1984

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

1.0 Basis for Contract Award: This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

1.1 A single IDIQ contract may be awarded to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to all the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation, including facility clearance requirements) and provides the best subjective trade-off value based upon the evaluation method described below. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process by its nature is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit through the entire process.

1.2 The Government seeks to award to the Offeror whose proposal provides the best trade-off value to the Air Force, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/ Technical Risk and Cost/Price factors. The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest priced Offeror to allow for superior performance.

1.3 Discussions: Offerors are reminded that the Government reserves the right to award based upon the Offeror’s initial proposal, as received by the Government, without engaging in discussions. Each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best solution to this requirement. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

1.3.1 Correction Potential of Proposals: The Government will consider the “correction potential” of any deficiency or weakness in an Offeror’s proposal. “Correction potential” will be considered by the Source Selection Evaluation Board throughout the evaluation process. The judgment of such correction potential is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government’s requirements and is not considered correctable without a major revision, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.4 Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government intends to award one (1) single award IDIQ contract and up to three (3) initial task orders for this effort. Additional task orders may be awarded as necessary within the stated contract ordering period.

M002 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

2.0 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

2.1 The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each Offeror’s proposal:

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Corporate Management Subfactor 2: Overarching Technical Approach Subfactor 3: Technical Approach to Tactical Command, Control, and Communications

(C3) (TO 0001)

Subfactor 4: Technical Approach to Position Navigation & Timing (PN&T) (TO 0002) Subfactor 5: Technical Approach to Small Satellite Portfolio (SSP) (TO 0003)

Factor 2: Cost/Price

2.2 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors: In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), the Technical Factor is significantly more important than Cost/Price. Within the Technical Factor, Subfactors 1 and 2 are of equal importance, and when combined are significantly more important than Subfactors 3, 4, and 5 combined. Subfactors 3, 4, and 5 are of equal importance.

2.3 FACTOR 1: Technical.

The Technical evaluation consists of a Combined Technical/Risk Rating. Proposals shall be rated at the technical subfactor level only; no roll-up rating will be assigned at the Factor 1 (Technical) level.

The Technical rating evaluates the Offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirements. Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach for satisfying the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degraded performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Each Technical subfactor will receive one of the Combined Technical/Risk ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 3 - Combined Technical/Risk file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR15.DOC#b15304

Rating Method (shown below) and will utilize the risk descriptions set forth in Table 2B (shown below) from the DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 01 April 2016.

The Government will assign strengths for aspects of an Offeror’s proposal that have merit or exceed specified performance in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance. NOTE: At the Government’s discretion, aspects of the proposal identified as strengths will be incorporated into the resulting contract.

TABLE 3 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATING METHOD

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, 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, 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/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

TABLE 2B – TECHNICAL RISK RATING METHOD

2.3.1 SUBFACTOR 1: Corporate Management

The Government shall assess the Offeror’s understanding of and technical approach to the performance of the Basic SOW by evaluating the following:

• The Offeror’s plan for effectively managing the scope of the RISE contract cost, schedule, and technical requirements, including effectively managing and utilizing subcontracts and/or teaming arrangements (Basic SOW Sections 5.5, 5.6, 5.7)

• The Offeror’s plan for recruiting, retaining, and equipping experienced personnel necessary for accomplishing the contract requirements from contract start through transition and the full period of performance (Basic SOW Sections 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.2.5, 5.2.7 and 5.2.8)

• The Offeror’s plan for meeting scalable surge requirements (Basic SOW Section 5.2.7) while maintaining contract performance in accordance with Government priorities across multiple, concurrent Task Orders (TOs)

2.3.2 SUBFACTOR 2: Overarching Technical Approach

The Government shall assess the Offeror’s understanding of and technical approach to the performance of the Basic SOW by evaluating the following:

• The Offeror’s plan for applying and documenting proven standards and practices to accomplish the cradle-to-grave stages for flight/ground systems, subsystems, and components as specified in section 4.0 of the Basic SOW.

• The Offeror’s experience tailoring engineering processes and procedures to accommodate missions of different risk classes and complexity.

2.3.3 SUBFACTOR 3: Technical Approach to TO 0001 Tactical Command, Control, and Communications

The Government shall assess the Offeror’s understanding of and technical approach to the performance of Tactical Command, Control, and Communications by evaluating the following:

• The soundness of the Offeror’s approach to meeting the requirements as specified in the

TO 0001 SOW.

• The Offeror’s experience analyzing, implementing, and testing Tactical Data Links, their network topology, and incorporate that into a larger Command, Control, and Communications (C3) architecture.

2.3.4 SUBFACTOR 4: Technical approach to TO 0002 Position Navigation & Timing

(PNT)

The Government shall assess the Offeror’s understanding of and technical approach to performance of Position Navigation and Timing by evaluating the following:

• The soundness of the Offeror’s approach to meeting the requirements as specified in the

TO 0002 SOW.

• The Offeror’s experience in implementing PNT advanced signal in: design, generation, broadcast, propagation and exploitation for a closed-loop, satellite navigation control systems and in analyzing, integrating, and testing PNT payloads.

2.3.5 SUBFACTOR 5: Technical approach to TO 0003 Small Satellite Portfolio

The Government shall assess the Offeror’s understanding of and technical approach to performance of the small satellites effort by evaluating the following:

• The Offeror’s plan to execute the Mission Design, Implementation, AI&T, On-Orbit Operations, and technology transfer for the Class 1 satellite experiments described in the

TO 0003 SOW.

• The Offeror’s plan to execute the Mission Design, Implementation, AI&T, On-Orbit Operations, and technology transfer for the Class 2 satellite experiments described in the

TO 0003 SOW.

2.4 Factor 2: Cost/Price

2.4.1 The Offeror's Cost/Price proposal must be reasonable/realistic for all three initial Task Orders. The Offeror's Cost/Price proposals will be evaluated by individual Task Order, less baselined costs, and then combined into a Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP is the sum total of all three initial Task Orders Most Probable Costs (MPC) computed by the Government. If any Task Order is determined to be unreasonable and/or unrealistic, the TEP will be determined to be unreasonable and/or unrealistic. To facilitate the evaluation of the proposal, the Government reserves the right to use information from other sources including, but not limited to, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), U.S.

Department of Labor, Global Insight Indices, comparable General Schedule scale, Government historical contract prices, and any other resources available to the Government.

2.4.2 Each Task Order will be evaluated, using one or more techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable and realistic. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Price reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404(a) and FAR 31.201-3.

2.4.3 Each Task Order will be evaluated by the Most Probable Cost (MPC) computed by the Government, based on the anticipated performance costs and proposed fee. The Offeror’s proposed estimated costs shall NOT be controlling for source selection purposes. The MPC is the Government’s best estimate of the cost that a contractor will incur in performing a cost reimbursement contract (FAR 15.404-1(d)(2)(i)(ii)). The following quantified risk will be used to develop the MPC:

2.4.3.1 Each Task Order will be evaluated to determine cost realism of each Offeror’s proposed costs. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed costs are realistic for the work to be performed; reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal FAR 15.404-1(d)(1) and FAR 2.101.

2.4.3.2 When the Government evaluates an offer as unrealistically low compared to the anticipated costs of performance and the Offeror fails to explain the under-estimated costs, the Government will consider, under the combined technical/risk rating, the Offeror’s lack of understanding of the technical requirements of the applicable Technical SubFactor.

2.4.3.3 The overall assessment of price reasonableness and cost realism will be at the Total Evaluated Price (TEP).