Attachment 5_Evaluation Criteria and Basis for Award.pdf

ATTACHMENT 5

EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS FOR AWARD

1. TYPE OF CONTRACT: The Government intends to make a source selection for a single-award indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract, but reserves the right to make no award, depending on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds.

2. BASIS FOR AWARD: The contract award decision will be based on the

Government’s evaluation of each offeror’s complete proposal against the evaluation criteria identified in the RFP. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal contains the combination of factors offering the best overall value to the Government. Best value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement (FAR 2.101). In making this evaluation, the Government is more concerned with obtaining superior technical and management solutions than with making an award to the offeror with the lowest proposed price.

3. INFORMATION USED IN THE EVALUATION. When conducting the evaluation, the Government will consider data included by offerors in their proposals, as well as data obtained from other sources.

4. EVALUATION FACTORS/SUBFACTORS:

Factor 1: Technical/Management Approach

Subfactor 1.1 Space Segment

Subfactor 1.2 End-to-End Service

Subfactor 1.3 Shore Segment

Subfactor 1.4 Operational Support

Subfactor 1.5 Security and Information Assurance

Subfactor 1.6 Management Approach

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

5. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE. Factor 1 (Technical/Management) is more important than Factor 2 (Past Performance). Factor 1 has six subfactors for evaluation purposes.

The subfactors under Factor 1 are listed in order of decreasing importance. When combined, Technical/Management and Past Performance are significantly more important than Price.

Price will not be a ranked or scored evaluation factor. The importance of price as an evaluation factor will increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to the remaining evaluation factors. When the offerors within the competitive range are considered essentially equal with respect to non-priced factors, or when price is so significantly high as to diminish the value of superiority of the non-price factors to the

Government, then price may become the determining factor for award. In summary, non-price/price trade-offs will be made, and the extent to which one may be sacrificed for the other is governed only by the tests of rationality and consistency with the established evaluation factors.

6. TRADE-OFF ANALYSIS. FAR 15.305(a) requires that, when tradeoffs are performed, the source selection records shall include (i) an assessment of each offeror’s ability to accomplish the technical requirements; (ii) a summary, matrix, or quantitative ranking, along with appropriate supporting narrative, of each technical proposal using the evaluation factors.

7. TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

The following subfactors will be used to evaluate the proposed management approach for performing the contract, application of this management approach, and the technical approach employed by the offeror’s proposal to fulfill the objectives identified in the

Statement of Objectives. The offeror’s Performance Work Statement (PWS) and Quality

Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) will be assessed as part of the technical/management factor. Proposals will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the approach demonstrates an understanding of the scope and complexity of the task areas as they apply to integration throughout the CBSP Program, DoD, and its strategic partners. The following subfactors will be rated:

Subfactor

Number

Requirement Definition Standard

1-1 Space Segment The CBSP space segment is defined as the commercial satellite resources needed to establish connectivity between the CBSP user terminal segment and the CBSP shore segment.

The offeror has presented a suitable technical solution with a sound, complete and adequate plan to meet the requirements stated in SOO

Paragraph 3.2.1

1-2 End-to-End

Service

The CBSP End-to-End service is defined as a full-period full-duplex connection or circuit between the

Government's designated Point of

Presence (PoP) ashore and the end user terminal through a means of satellite, Land Earth Station (LES) and terrestrial telecommunications connectivity. The End-to-End service includes items that span the three segments (user terminal, space, and shore).

The offeror has presented a suitable technical solution with a sound, complete and adequate plan to meet the requirements stated in SOO

Paragraph 3.2.3

1-3 Shore Segment The CBSP shore segment consists of a number of geographically separated commercial land earth stations (LES) and the terrestrial telecommunications connectivity between them and designated Navy points of presence

(PoP). The CBSP shore segment supports the terminal segment by providing the necessary link between

CBSP space segment and Navy communications networks ashore.

The offeror has presented a suitable technical solution with a sound, complete and adequate plan to meet the requirements stated in SOO

Paragraph 3.2.2

1-4 Operational

Support

The CBSP operational support requirements are defined as the professional services provided by the vendor to perform and/or monitor

End-to-end services to ensure operation and integrity of the end-to-end system and interface with Navy operational staff.

The offeror has presented a suitable technical solution with a sound, complete and adequate plan to meet the requirements stated in SOO

Paragraph 3.3

1-5 Security and

Information

Assurance

Security and Information Assurance

Requirements are defined as a means to ensure that the vendor support will include all personnel, system, administrative, operational, and physical security requirements defined as appropriate to safeguard

Navy information yet still execute all contract objectives.

The offeror has presented a suitable technical solution with a sound, complete and adequate plan to meet the requirements stated in SOO

Paragraph 3.3.1

1-6 Management

Approach

The Government evaluates the extent to which the vendor demonstrates the capability, organizational structure, personnel and management plan to successfully execute this program, including management of subcontractors, if proposed. The

Government will evaluate the extent of participation of small business concerns in performance of the contract.

The standard is met when the offeror’s submission demonstrates the following: 1.

The offeror has the experience, organizational structure, and a management plan to successfully execute a program of this size and complexity. 2. The offeror has an approach to management of any subcontractors which it proposes, beginning the first day of the contract. 3. The offeror has experienced key personnel either presently on staff or resumes of potential employees with letters of commitment. 4. The PWS addresses all objectives in the SOO in sufficient detail. 5. The QASP is consistent with the PWS and provides the Government confidence in the offeror’s ability to monitor performance quality. 6. Subcontracting Plans submitted in accordance with FAR 19.702 are acceptable to the CO and meet the requirements of FAR 19.704.

COLOR CODE RATING TABLE FOR TECHNICAL EVALUATION

The Government will perform a risk assessment of each offeror’s proposal as part of the evaluation of strengths and weaknesses. Proposal risk assessment focuses on the risks and weaknesses associated with the offeror’s proposed approach. Risks may occur as a result of a particular technical approach, operational process, management plan, etc., or as a result of the schedule and economic impacts associated with these approaches. Assessment of risk includes potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, and the need for increased Government oversight as well as the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. For any risk identified, the evaluation will address the offeror’s proposal for mitigating those risks and why that approach is or is not manageable. The definitions of risks for Technical/Management are below.

COLOR Technical Capability STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES

Blue

The proposal exceeds requirements and clearly demonstrates the offeror’s capability to deliver exceptional performance.

There are numerous strengths that are of direct benefit to the

Government.

Weaknesses are considered insignificant and have no apparent impact to the program.

Green

The proposal is satisfactory; the offeror is capable of meeting performance requirements.

Some strengths exist that are of benefit to the Government; the strengths clearly offset weaknesses.

A few weaknesses exist;

they are correctable with minimal Government oversight or direction.

Yellow minimally adequate;

the offeror is most likely able to meet performance requirements.

Few strengths exist that are of benefit to the Government; the strengths do not offset the weaknesses.

Substantial weaknesses exist that may impact the program; they are correctable with some

Government oversight and direction.

Orange inadequate; it is doubtful whether the offeror can meet performance requirements.

Little, if any, strengths exist that are of benefit to the

Government; the weaknesses clearly offset the strengths.

Weaknesses exist that adversely impact the program; they are correctable with significant Government oversight and direction.

Red highly inadequate;

the offeror cannot meet performance requirements.

There are no beneficial strengths.

Numerous weaknesses exist that are so significant that a proposal re-write is not feasible within a suitable timeframe.

RISK ASSESSMENT DESCRIPTION TABLE

Risk Description

High Offeror’s proposed approach is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increase in price, or degradation of performance, and will require a high level of contractor emphasis and Government monitoring to overcome difficulties.

Medium Offeror’s proposed approach is likely to cause a moderate disruption of schedule, increase in price, or degradation of performance, and will require a medium level of contractor emphasis and Government monitoring to overcome difficulties.

Low Offeror’s proposed approach is likely to cause minimal or no disruption of schedule, increase in price, or degradation of performance, and will require a low level of contractor emphasis and Government monitoring to overcome difficulties.

Definitions:

Major Strength: Adds a significant benefit to the Government by significantly exceeding one or more threshold requirements. Also is either inherent in offeror’s proposal or will be made a contract requirement through the PWS or a contract clause.

Strength: A strength represents a benefit to the Government for which the proposal goes beyond meeting threshold requirements. Also is either inherent in offeror’s proposal or will be made a contract requirement through the PWS or a contract clause.

Weakness: Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A significant weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency: Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. Examples of deficiencies may include a statement by the offeror that it cannot or will not meet a requirement, an approach that clearly does not meet a requirement, or omission of data required to assess compliance with the requirement.

Risk: A risk is an element of the proposal that potentially increases the likelihood and/or extent of poor or unsuccessful performance. A risk implies that action must be taken to avoid failure. Risks should be identified as high, medium, or low.

Threshold Requirements: A threshold requirement is a technical objective which the

Government has deemed to be of such importance that an offeror’s failure to demonstrate the ability to meet that technical objective will be considered a deficiency. Where the

SOO does not list an objective and threshold requirement, the stated technical objective is considered the threshold requirement.

Objective Requirements: An objective is a desire of the Government that is greater than or more difficult to achieve than the threshold requirement. The offeror’s demonstrated ability to meet the greater objective will be factored into the offeror’s technical score or ranking.

Cross-Impact: That part of a response that may have an impact on another part of the evaluation.

Omissions: Information requested from offerors by the solicitation that was not provided in the response. An omission is not necessarily a deficiency.

NOTE: Since it is impossible to anticipate the nature of each offeror’s proposal in advance or to describe the myriad qualities and considerations that could result in one of the above meanings for ratings, these definitions should be looked upon as examples of typical characteristics of that rating, and should be used as a guide for reference rather than a rigid measure to be followed word-for-word. Evaluators will be instructed to select the rating/definition that most closely fits the value or desirability of the offeror’s proposed performance, after providing a narrative description of the evaluation.

8. PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Past performance will be evaluated for recency, relevancy, and quality in the context of the technical/management subfactors and scope of work. Recent is defined as performed within the past three years (on ongoing). Relevancy is defined in the table below.

Quality includes conformance to contract requirements; standards of good workmanship;

record of meeting schedule and delivery dates; business relations; management of key personnel; management of subcontracts; and record of complying with subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns, monetary targets for SDB participation, and notifications submitted under FAR 19.1202-4(b).

The Past Performance evaluation will be based on the prime contractor’s past performance and the past performance of all significant subcontractors or teaming partners.

Rating Definition

Highly

Relevant

Past/present performance effort involved many of the complexities, size, scope and services required by the

SOO. To be considered highly relevant, the offeror should demonstrate performance in all of the following:

• Managing commercial satellite bandwidth (e.g., C, Ku, X) and terrestrial circuits on a world-wide basis for a single customer, demonstrating the ability to manage bandwidth services as user terminals move from one satellite footprint into another (i.e., 6 of 7 continents and 3 of 4 oceans) for an enterprise consumer (i.e., multiple companies in multiple global locations)

• Providing end-to-end satellite and terrestrial, commercial communications services for at least 25 terminals concurrently

• Providing LES services (e.g., receiving data from terminals and processing it for further transmission to the network)

• Performance and/or monitoring of end-to-end services (i.e., test and evaluation of circuits, interference resolution experience, Information Assurance services, FSS RF Spectrum Monitoring experience, link and terminal status monitoring experience, ability to provide user interface for 24/7/365 operations)

Relevant Past/present performance effort involved some of the complexities and services required by the SOO. To be considered relevant, the offeror should, at a minimum, demonstrate performance in two or more of the following:

• Managing commercial satellite bandwidth and terrestrial circuits on a multi-regional basis for multiple customers

• Providing end-to-end satellite and terrestrial, commercial communications services for multiple user terminals

• Providing LES services or performance and/or monitoring of end-to-end services

Not

Relevant

Past/present performance effort did not involve the complexities and services this solicitation requires.

A past performance confidence rating will be assigned using the ratings below.

Past Performance Rating Table

Rating Past Performance

BLUE

Exceptional Past Performance. Highly relevant past performance in all evaluated efforts. Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded many to the

Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

GREEN

Very Good Past Performance. Highly Relevant past performance in most evaluated efforts. Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded some to the

Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

YELLOW

Satisfactory Performance. Highly relevant past performance in evaluated efforts. Performance met contractual requirements.

The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.

RED Unsatisfactory Past Performance. Few relevant past performance efforts evaluated. Performance did not meet most contractual requirements and recovery in a timely manner is not likely (applies to ongoing efforts). The contractual performance of the element or sub-element had serious problem(s) for which the contractor took no corrective actions or those taken were ineffective.

WHITE No performance record is identifiable. Completely lacks recent and relevant performance history or past performance is unavailable.

9. PRICE EVALUATION

The price evaluation will be based on the total Discounted Life-Cycle Cost (DLCC) for the projected 5-year contract life (1-year base period and four 1-year options). The

Government will calculate the total DLCC by multiplying the proposed prices by the evaluation quantities, totaling these amounts for each year, and multiplying this amount by the appropriate discount rate listed below. The discount rates are based on the 2009 mid-year nominal interest rates listed in Office of Management and Budget Circular No.

A-94. The discounted yearly totals will be summed to calculate the total DLCC.

Although the evaluation period is 60 months, this should not be construed to mean that all option years will be exercised.

Base Year Option

Year 1

Option

Year 2

Option

Year 3

Option

Year 4

Actual Life

Cycle Cost

Discount

Factors .984 .952 .922 .893 .864

Discounted

Life Cycle

Cost

The total proposed price for each offeror will also be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, and if necessary, price realism. The price evaluation will not be assigned a color rating.

Completeness. The Government will verify that all solicitation requirements have been priced, figures are correctly calculated, and costs are presented in a clear and useful format.

Reasonableness. The Government will determine the reasonableness of the overall price based on adequate price competition and, if necessary, by comparison with the Government’s Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE). In addition, the offeror’s price proposal will be reviewed for unbalanced pricing in accordance with FAR

15.404-1(g).

Realism. The Government may evaluate cost/price realism with regard to the ability of the offeror to meet the CBPS requirement, if the Government deems such analysis is necessary. Results of any realism analysis may be used in performance risk assessments and responsibility determinations. However, all proposals will be evaluated using the criteria in the solicitation, and the offered prices will not be adjusted as a result of the realism analysis.

Listed below are the Baseline/Transit Projected Threshold evaluation quantities which will be used in the price evaluation. The price schedule provides only the Base

Year Projected Bandwidth Threshold amounts.

Bandwidth Evaluation Quantities

Base Year Option Yr 1 Option Yr 2 Option Yr 3 Option Yr 4

Region A

Ku-Band 37.4 71.9 89.1 101.7 106.7

C-Band 92.2 77.6 77.6 67.9 67.9

X-Band 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.4

Region E

Ku-Band 88.1 108.7 108.7 108.7 108.7

C-Band 29.1 49.7 49.7 49.7 49.7

X-Band 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2

Region G

Ku-Band 116.3 136.9 136.9 136.9 136.9

C-Band 29.1 49.7 49.7 49.7 49.7

X-Band 0 0 0 0 0

Region H

Ku-Band 5 5 15.2 15.2 25.4

C-Band 0 0 0 0 0

Region J

Ku-Band 101.3 152.1 162.3 162.3 162.3

C-Band 67.9 99.3 99.3 99.3 99.3

Region PI

Ku-Band 96.3 116.9 116.9 116.9 116.9

C-Band 33.6 54.2 54.2 54.2 54.2

Region SA

Ku-Band 5 5 5 5 5

C-Band 0 0 0 0 0

Region S1

Ku-Band 0 0 0 0 0

C-Band 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4

X-Band 27.4 27.4 27.4 27.4 27.4

Region S2

Region S3

Region S4

The On-Demand Bandwidth evaluation quantities will be determined before receipt of proposals; however these evaluation quantities will not be released until after contract award.

Listed below are the Modem Installation, CLIN 0227, evaluation quantities for the Base Year and four Option Years:

Base Year Option Yr 1 Option Yr 2 Option Yr 3 Option Yr 4

CLIN

0227 120 30 30 30 30

The quantities listed in the price schedule are the government's best estimates of their intended usage. They are for evaluation purposes only and do not represent the minimum or maximum quantities which will be ordered.