Section_M_v3 122825.docx

UNCLASSIFIED

SECTION M. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1.0 SOURCE SELECTION

M.1.1. General.

M.1.1.1. Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions.

Offerors are required to address all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical/management requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or sub-factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award.

M.1.1.2. Basis for Contract Award – Best Value Determination.

The Government intends to award a single-award indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract to a responsible Offeror in accordance with FAR 9.104-1. To determine contract award, the Government will evaluate offers received under this RFP to determine a single Offeror whose proposal conforms to this Solicitation and is determined to provide the best value to the Government (FAR 15.101), price/cost and non-price/cost factors considered. The tradeoff process (FAR 15.101-1) will be utilized if deemed necessary by the Source Selection Authority. In applying the trade-off analysis, all non-price/cost evaluation factors (excluding Security which is rated “Pass/Fail”) when combined are significantly more important than price/cost.

M.1.1.3. Evaluation Procedures.

The Government will review proposals to ensure they materially and substantially comply with the proposal submittal instructions as delineated in Section L of the solicitation before advancing into the proposal evaluation stage. If, based on this compliance review, the Government determines that a proposal is not materially and substantially compliant with the proposal submittal instructions and cannot reasonably be made acceptable through clarifications, the proposal shall be rated as “Fail” and shall not advance to the evaluation stage. Rejection of a proposal on this basis does not constitute creation of a “competitive range."

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors in accordance with FAR 52.215-1 (except for clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price/cost and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer (CO) later determines them to be necessary.

M.1.1.3.1 Competitive Range Determination.

If the Government determines that discussions are required, then the Government will make a competitive range determination in accordance with FAR 15.306(c). The Government will make the determination based on an initial evaluation of Technical/Management, Past Performance, Intellectual Property, Security, and Price/Cost. The competitive range will include only those proposals most highly rated after initial evaluation. The Government will base the initial evaluation of proposals and the initial determination of the competitive range upon a review of the proposals and consider any information exchanged during communications as defined in FAR 15.306(b). The Government will discontinue evaluation of any proposal which is not considered in the competitive range after initial evaluations. After evaluating all proposals, in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(2), the CO may determine that the number of most highly rated proposals that might otherwise be included in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted. In such case, the CO may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. The CO will promptly notify Offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range, whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505. Offerors considered in the competitive range will be notified.

M.1.1.3.2 Discussions.

If the Government determines that discussions are required, then following the competitive range determination, the Government will hold written and/or oral discussions with all Offerors within the competitive range. The scope and extent of the discussions are at the discretion of the CO, and the CO will tailor discussions to each Offeror’s proposal. During these discussions, the Government will discuss deficiencies, weaknesses, and adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond. The Government may remove an Offeror from the competitive range at any point during discussions, whether or not all material aspects of the proposal have been discussed or, if the Offeror’s proposal is no longer considered to be one of the most highly rated. When the Government concludes discussions, it will give all Offerors within the competitive range the opportunity to submit a final revised proposal by the date and time identified by the CO.

M.1.1.3.3 Final Evaluation.

If final proposal revisions (FPRs) are requested, the Government will evaluate each of the FPRs to select an Offeror for award. The evaluation criteria used in this evaluation will be the same as those used in the initial evaluation or as otherwise amended.

M.1.1.3.4 Notice and Debriefing Offerors remaining in the competitive range, who are not selected for award, will be notified of the award decision after evaluation of the FPRs, and award to the successful Offeror. Debriefing requests must be in writing and be received by the CO within three (3) days after the date the Offeror receives the contract award notification. If a debriefing is requested, Offerors will be provided an opportunity to submit additional questions related to the debriefing within two (2) business days after receiving the debriefing. If no post-award written questions are timely received, the debriefing will be closed on the date the unsuccessful Offeror received the debriefing. If post-award written questions are timely received, the post-award debriefing shall not be considered concluded until the agency delivers its written responses to the unsuccessful Offeror. Debriefings shall be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.506 and Class Deviation 2018-O0011, Enhanced Post award Debriefing Rights.

M.2.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA

Relative Importance of non-price/cost and price/cost Factors: (1) The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Table M.1: Evaluation Factors and Sub-Factors

Technical/Management is Significantly More Important than Past Performance.

M.2.1 Factor and Sub-factor Assessments The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal utilizing the Factors and Sub-Factors as described in the following paragraphs. The Government will assign an appropriate rating to each of the non-Price/Cost Factors and Sub-Factors and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the Factors’ and Sub-Factors’ relative strengths, weaknesses and/or deficiencies. Security will be rated on a pass/fail basis. A proposal that receives a rating of “Fail” for the Security factor will not be considered for award. Price/Cost will be evaluated but not rated.

M.2.2 Factors 1.0 and 2.0 Technical and Management Approach The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s technical/management proposal utilizing the Technical/Management Factors and Sub-factors as described in Table M.1. The Government will assign an adjectival/color rating to the Factor and Sub-factors in accordance with the rating tables (M.2 and M.3) below. Table M.2 will be utilized for Technical/Management and Table M.3 will be utilized for Small Business. In arriving at the ratings for each Sub-Factor, the Government will consider the quality of the Offeror’s solution with consideration of the technical and management risk. In determining the overall ratings to the Technical/Management Factors, the technical and management sub-factor ratings will be “rolled up” into an overall rating for the Technical/Management based upon the relative order of importance identified above. The Government will assess the Offeror’s approach in relation to the evaluation criteria and develop narratives on the strengths, weaknesses and/or deficiencies of the proposal, using Table M.4.

Table M.2 Combined Technical/Management Risk Ratings

Table M.3: Combined Small Business Plan/Risk Ratings

Table M.4 Degrees of Strengths and Weaknesses

Significant Strength An aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be significantly advantageous to the Government during contract performance (or may significantly decrease the risk of unsuccessful contract performance).

Moderate Strength An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be moderately advantageous to the Government during contract performance (and/or may moderately decrease the risk of unsuccessful contract performance).

Slight Strength An aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be slightly advantageous to the Government during contract performance (and/or may slightly decrease the risk of unsuccessful contract performance).

Slight Weakness A flaw in the proposal that slightly increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Moderate Weakness A flaw in the proposal that moderately increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

M.2.3 Factor 2.0 Past Performance Factor Assessment The Past Performance Evaluation Team evaluates the relevancy of each of the Offeror’s past performance references (Table M5) and assigns an overall Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating (Table M6) based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

Table M.5: Past Performance Relevancy Rating

Table M.6: Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

M.2.4 Factor 3.0 Intellectual Property Factor Assessment The Intellectual Property Evaluation Team assesses risk to indicate whether the proposal increases or decreases intellectual property risk. A rating from the Table M7 below will be assigned to the Intellectual Property factor.

Table M.7: Intellectual Property (IP) Risk Scale

M.3.0 Evaluation Criteria Descriptions M.3.1 Factor 1: Technical This factor evaluates the extent to which the proposal provides evidence that the Offeror has a thorough understanding of program requirements and objectives as set forth in the PWS by proposing solutions and approaches that demonstrate sound technical practices in order to achieve the objectives of the acquisition. The following sub-factors will be used to support this evaluation.

M.3.1.1 Sub-Factor 1.1: Operations Support Services The standards of this sub-factor are in descending order of importance and are met when the Offeror:

(a) Demonstrates an adequate approach to provide DevSecOps Management support in accordance with Air Task Order PWS, Section 6.3, WBS 4.11.

(b) Demonstrates an adequate approach to provide System Performance support in accordance with Air Task Order PWS, Section 6.3, WBS 4.25.

(c) Demonstrates an adequate approach to provide Automation support in accordance with Air Task Order PWS, Section 6.3, WBS 4.4.

M.3.1.2 Sub-Factor 1.2: Integration Services The standards of this sub-factor are in descending order of importance and are met when the Offeror:

(a) Demonstrates an adequate approach to provide Cloud Engineering, Integration, and Management support in accordance with Air Task Order PWS Section 6.1, WBS 2.37.

(b) Demonstrates an adequate approach to provide Engineering support in accordance with Air Task Order PWS Section 6.1, WBS 2.38.

(c) Demonstrates the ability to provide Release Management support in accordance with Air Task Order PWS, Section 6.1, WBS 4.5.

M.3.1.3 Sub-Factor 1.3: Software Maintenance Service The standards of this sub-factor are in descending order of importance and are met when the Offeror:

(a) Demonstrates an adequate approach to provide Corrective Maintenance support in accordance with Air Task Order PWS, Section 6.2, WBS 3.16.

(b) Demonstrates an adequate approach to provide Adaptive Maintenance support in accordance with Air Task Order PWS, Section 6.2, WBS 3.17.

(c) Demonstrates an adequate approach to provide Preventive Maintenance support in accordance with Air Task Order PWS, Section 6.2, WBS 3.18.

(d) Demonstrates an adequate approach to provide Perfective Maintenance support in accordance with Air Task Order PWS, Section 6.2, WBS 3.19.

M.3.1.4 Sub-Factor 1.4: Common Services The standards of this sub-factor are in descending order of importance and are met when the Offeror:

(a) Demonstrates an adequate approach to provide software license procurement support in accordance with Common Services Task Order PWS Section 6.2.

(b) Demonstrates an adequate approach to providing integrated and comprehensive help desk support for Tier 1, 2, and 3 support to include tracking escalation and resolution in accordance with Common Services Task Order PWS Sections 2.20 and WBS 2.24.

(c) Demonstrates an adequate approach to provide Cyber Security support in accordance with Common Services Task Order PWS, Section 4.3, and Base PWS WBS 6.28.

(d) Demonstrates an adequate approach to provide Innovation and AI/ML support in accordance with Base, Section 6.46.

M.3.1.5 Sub-Factor 1.5: Program Management The standards of this sub-factor are in descending order of importance and are met when the Offeror:

(a) Demonstrates an adequate Program Management Plan in accordance with the IDIQ PWS Section 7.1.

(b) Demonstrates an adequate approach to providing key personnel. The Offeror shall meet all of the required qualifications and education/equivalencies for proposed key personnel. Failure to demonstrate in the resume that each key personnel meet the requirements will result in the assessment of a deficiency and a rating of Unacceptable for this sub-factor, which will result in an overall rating of Unacceptable. Resumes for key personnel shall include a description of the experience and capabilities for all proposed key personnel. The resumes shall demonstrate how the proposed individuals meet the required and/or desired skills. Resumes shall also address the proposed individuals’ technical background, education, work experience, and accomplishments related to the activities described in this solicitation. A signed letter of commitment is required for all key personnel currently employed by the Offeror or a teaming partner. A signed letter of intent is required for any key personnel not currently employed by the Offeror or a teaming partner.

(c) Describes an adequate staffing plan to meet the requirements of the Common Services Task Order and Air PWSs. The Offeror’s Staffing Plan shall demonstrate sound methodologies and resources for staffing (to include recruitment and onboarding at initial award and throughout life of the IDIQ) and maintaining an appropriate level of qualified personnel sufficient to perform the FS3i requirements (as substantiated in the Offeror’s BOEs for Common Services Task Order and Air Task Order PWSs). The Government will utilize the Offeror’s BOEs (without pricing) to determine if the proposed labor categories, skill mix, and hours are sufficient to accomplish the tasks in the Common Services Task Order and Air PWSs. The staffing plan must demonstrate that adequate Contractor SCIF facilities are available during the full performance of this effort to accommodate the proposed staff.

(d) Demonstrates an adequate transition-in plan in accordance with Base IDIQ PWS. The Offeror shall describe a detailed transition-in plan that will result in negligible impact to operations to include risk mitigation strategies, structured onboarding to ensure seamless operational continuity, a demonstrated ability to transition all capabilities (operational and administrative), and an approach to transitioning from legacy contract resources and methods to new, different, and/or innovative resources and methods.

(e) Describes a cohesive subcontractor and total teaming strategy that leverages complementary capabilities to maximize efficiency, mitigate risk, and delivers the best value to the Government.

M.3.1.6 Sub-Factor 1.6: Small Business The Government will evaluate the Small Business Participation Plan (SBPP) for all Offerors (both large and small businesses), based on consideration of the level of small business commitment that the Offeror demonstrates for the proposed Strata acquisition. The Government will utilize the following in considering the Offeror’s SBP:

(a) The extent to which the proposed SBP provides a detailed and realistic approach to maintain the 31% small business participation goal (including socio-economic goals) in terms of the total contract value throughout the life of the contract. Offerors shall provide a detailed explanation/documentation supporting the proposed participation percentages, or lack thereof.

(b) The extent to which small business firms are specifically identified in the proposal.

(c) The extent of commitment to use such firms, such as teaming agreements (enforceable commitments will be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones).

(d) The extent of commitment to include small businesses in a variety of complex and challenging work across the entire scope of the contract.

*Note (for Small Business Offerors): If a small business proposes as the Prime Contractor, its participation in the contract counts towards small business participation and should be identified as such.

M.3.2 Factor 2.0 - Past Performance M.3.2.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance which entails an assessment of the Government’s confidence in the ability of the Offeror to meet the solicitation requirements.

The past performance evaluation will consider each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying services and products meeting solicitation requirements, including the past performance of significant subcontractors (significant being at least 15% of the total proposed price). The recency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in a contractor’s performance will be considered (FAR 15.305(a)(2)). These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each Offeror.

M.3.2.2 Unlike other evaluation factors, past performance information known from sources other than those in or resulting from the proposal may be considered by evaluators in the Past Performance evaluation. The past performance evaluators may conduct interviews to obtain sufficient information to complete their evaluation. Any such interviews will be monitored and controlled by the CO.

M.3.2.3 There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

M.3.2.3.1 Recency: The first aspect to evaluate is the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. A contract/task order is considered recent if it is ongoing or has been completed within five (5) years of the date of the Strata solicitation issuance. A contract/task order in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance if any part of the effort falls within the 5-year window. Ongoing contracts/task orders with fewer than 12 months of performance data at the time of submission of the proposal shall not be considered in this evaluation.

A contract/task order that fails the recency assessment will not receive further consideration in the past performance evaluation and will not be considered in the overall confidence assessment.

M.3.2.3.2 Relevancy: The second aspect to determine is how relevant a recent contract/task order accomplished by the Offeror is to the FS3i effort to be acquired through the source selection. The relevancy determination may encompass aspects such as, but not limited to, the Offeror or its subcontractor’s role on the proposed team (if applicable), similarity of service/support, scope, size and complexity; software development experience, availability/use of key personnel and/or similarly certified staff; contract type, and/or extent of subcontract/teaming.

The four levels of Past Performance Relevancy are shown in Table M.5 above. An effort that is assessed as Not Relevant will not receive further consideration in the past performance evaluation or be considered in the overall confidence assessment.

M.3.2.3.3 Quality: The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance (FAR 15.304(c)(2)). The past performance evaluation does not determine the performance on contracts/task orders; rather, it gathers information from customers/clients on how well the Offeror performed. Only past performance efforts that are assessed Very Relevant, Relevant, or Somewhat Relevant will be considered in the quality assessment. The quality of the Offeror’s past performance will be assessed using, at minimum, the following areas of consideration:

· Technical past performance: quality of services/products and staffing/personnel; and capability to employ sound practices;

· Management past performance: adherence to schedule, performance, and communication between the customer and Offeror;

· Price/Cost performance: quality and accuracy of price/cost proposals, documentation, and reports; cost control; and identification and implementation of cost saving measures;

· Small Business Participation: the extent to which the Offeror has met small business participation goals, or incorporated small business participation (if no formal goals were included in the contract/task order).

M.3.2.4 The Government will consider all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. The Government will not assess separate quality ratings for each contract/task order or an overall quality rating, but will consider the inputs received from customers/clients on quality for all recent and relevant contracts/task orders in determining an overall confidence assessment.

M.3.2.5 The past performance confidence assessment will be based upon the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

More relevant performance has a greater impact on the confidence rating than less relevant efforts. The Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings are provided in Table M.6 above.

Sources of past performance information for evaluation may include:

· Past performance information provided by the Offeror, as solicited.

· Offeror's Past Performance Volume, Past Performance Questionnaire (Addendum L-04).

· Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the NGA Performance Assessment Reports (PARs) and other sources, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCAA); and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Contracting Officer’s Representative(s), Technical Monitors, and/or Fee Determining Officials.

M.3.2.6 No Past Performance Information. In the case of Offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). In this case, the Offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.” The Government may consider a past performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence or Satisfactory Confidence more favorably than a Neutral confidence rating.

M.3.2.7 Offeror(s) whose past performance evaluation could be the determining factor in whether they are included within the competitive range will be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information, through communications pursuant to FAR 15.306(b), provided that the Offeror has not had prior opportunity to respond to the unfavorable assessments. In addition, if discussions are held, per FAR 15.306(d), all Offerors in the competitive range will be notified of adverse past performance related to this procurement to which the offeror has not had the opportunity to respond. Recent contracts may also be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. Even prompt corrective action may not outweigh overall negative trends in determining the overall confidence assessment based on past performance.

M.3.3 - Factor 3 Intellectual Property The Government will evaluate the risk as the extent to which the rights in technical data, computer software and computer software documentation, and/or inventions/patents offered to the Government will ensure unimpeded, innovative, and cost effective production, operation, maintenance, and upgrade of the capability/service throughout the program life cycle; will allow for open and competitive procurement of enhancements; and will permit the transfer of technical data of non-proprietary object code and source code to other contractors for use on other systems or platforms. Risk ratings for proposals to deliver Technical Data, Computer Software Documentation, or non-commercial Software with less than the minimum rights specified for the Government by applicable statute (10 U.S.C. 2320) and DFARS 252.227-7013, 252.227-7014, and 252.227-7015, may be negatively impacted. Specifically for this acquisition, these rights include: Unlimited Rights in Technical Data (as specified in DFAR 252.227-7013(b)(1)), and Computer Software Documentation and Software (as specified in DFARS 252.227-7014(b)(1)); Government Purpose Rights in Technical Data (as specified in DFARS 252.227-7013(b)(2)), and Computer Software Documentation and Software (as specified in DFARS 252.227-7014(b)(2)); Limited Rights in Technical Data (as specified in DFAR 252.227-7013(b)(3)); and Restricted Rights in Software (as specified in DFARS 252.227-7014(b)(3)). The minimum rights considered for Technical Data associated with commercial item acquisitions are specified in DFARS 252.227-7015(b). For commercial Software acquisitions, evaluation of the offered rights will assess their consistency with Federal procurement law and satisfaction of Government user needs. Risk ratings on this standard for proposals to deliver Technical Data, Computer Software Documentation, or non-commercial Software with more than the minimum rights specified for the Government by applicable statute and regulation may be positively impacted. Intellectual Property Risk will be evaluated using the element of risk scale detailed above to indicate whether the proposal increases or decreases intellectual property risk.

M.3.4 - Factor 4 Security (Pass/Fail) The Government will evaluate information provided in the Offeror’s proposal on a Pass/Fail basis at the time of proposal submission to determine security eligibility and the ability to satisfy the requirements set forth in the DD Form 254, and an assessment of the Offeror’s security plan submitted in its proposal explaining how the Offeror will comply with security policies and regulations. The Offeror must provide information that can be verified via NGA, DoD, and/or IC databases and/or through coordination with other DoD and IC agencies, as applicable. The following Sub-Factors will be used to evaluate the Security Factor.

Sub-Factor 4.1: Facility Clearance (FCL) Level and Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI).

The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated, via a database query, to determine whether the Offeror, at the time of the security volume submission, possesses an active Top Secret FCL (Facility Clearance shown on DD Form 254) level. The Offeror must: (1) demonstrate that there are no unmitigated FOCI issues or concerns (all “no” answers to SF 328); or, when there are “yes” answers, (2) include official communications from DCSA authorizing their FCL with FOCI; or (3) provide a screen capture of their NISS Facility Profiles tab displaying their current status as having no unmitigated FOCI issues in conjunction with their SF 328 (that displays “yes” answers).

13 C.F.R. 121.103(h)(4) will be applied when the Government evaluates the proposal under this Sub-Factor if the Offeror is a small business joint venture. Thus, if applicable, “Offeror” includes the “joint venture itself or the individual partner(s) to the joint venture that will perform the necessary security work.”

The below Pass/Fail ratings will be applied to determine if the Security volume passes or fails Sub-Factor 4.1: Facility Clearance (FCL) and Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI):

Table M.8 Security Ratings

Sub-Factor 4.2: Personnel Security Clearance Level (PCL)/ Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) access.

The Security Volume will be evaluated, via a database query, to determine that each key personnel (as required by the RFP) proposed by the Offeror, demonstrates a favorably adjudicated Top Secret/SCI Access Eligibility that: 1) is not more than seven years old; or has been entered into the Continuous Evaluation program with a deferred investigation requirement, and 2) meets the reciprocity requirements of Security Executive Agent Directive 7 (SEAD 7).

The below Pass/Fail ratings will be applied to determine if the Security volume passes or fails Sub-Factor 4.2: Personnel Security Clearance (PCL)/ Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) access.

Table M.9 Rating for PCL

Sub-Factor 4.3 Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF).

The Security volume will be evaluated to determine the Offeror’s ability, at the time of proposal submission, to utilize an accredited SCIF (or SCIFs) that can be properly covered by a Government approved Co-Utilization agreement and/or otherwise meets DoD or ODNI SCIF security requirements to accomplish SCI work that must be performed (or is otherwise proposed to be performed) under this Contract.

The below Pass/Fail ratings will be applied to determine if the Security volume passes or fails Sub-Factor 4.3: Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) Table M.10 Rating for SCIF

Sub-Factor 4.4 Security Plan.

The Security volume will be evaluated for the Offeror’s approach to protect classified (collateral and SCI) information in accordance with DoD, and DNI, security policies and regulations for this effort. At a minimum the security plan must demonstrate an understanding of the Government’s requirement by addressing: (1) the pre-screening of individuals for security clearances/accesses; (2) security training requirements; (3) a comprehensive approach to the protection and safeguarding of classified/sensitive information; (4) a plan to manage threats to the supply chain from foreign interference; and (5) procedures for handling security incidents and/or violations.

The below Pass/Fail ratings will be applied to determine if the Security volume passes or fails Sub-Factor 4.4: Security Plan

Table M.11 Rating for Security Plan

Sub-Factor 4.5 Cyber Hygiene.

NGA Security will evaluate and determine, via a database query using Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS), that an Offeror’s CAGE code identified in the proposal has a current NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment (i.e., not more than 3 years old). The security volume must contain the date the assessment was completed, organization conducting the assessment, and when a score of 110 has not be achieved, the date that all requirements are expected to be implemented (i.e., date the score of 110 is expected to be achieved).

Table M.12 Rating for Cyber Hygiene

Sub-Factor 4.6 Supply Chain Risk Management.

The Government will assess an Offeror’s supply chain risk and assign a threat level, following guidance set forth in Intelligence Community Standard (ICS) 731-02, Supply Chain Threat Assessments, the below Pass/Fail ratings will be applied to determine if the Supply Chain Risk is acceptable to the Government using the following definitions for each threat level – Critical – Information indicates a foreign intelligence entity (FIE) or other adversary is engaged in subversion, exploitation, or sabotage of the acquisition item or service’s supply chain, including business practices and relationships. Alternative information indicates a FIE or other adversary has established an overt or clandestine relationship within the supply chain, and that a FIE or other adversary has the capability and intent to engage in subversion, exploitation, or sabotage of the acquisition item or service’s supply chain.

High – Information indicates a FIE or other adversary has the capability and intent to engage in subversion, exploitation or sabotage of the acquisition item or service’s supply chain; however, there are no indications of subversion, exploitation, or sabotage.

Medium - Information indicates a FIE or other adversary has either the capability or the intent to engage in subversion, exploitation or sabotage of the acquisition item or service’s supply chain; however, there are no indications of subversion, exploitation, or sabotage.

Low - Information indicates a FIE or other adversary have neither the capability nor the intent to engage in subversion, exploitation, or sabotage of the acquisition item or service’s supply chain.

Insufficient Information – The information available is insufficient to assign a threat level to a FIE’s or other adversary’s capability and intent to engage in subversion, exploitation, or sabotage of the acquisition item or service’s supply chain.

Table M.12 Rating for Supply Chain Risk Management

M.3.6 - Factor 5.0 Price/Cost M.3.6.1 The Government has chosen to use TO1 (Common Services Task Order) and TO2 (Air Task Order) to evaluate the Cost for the award of the basic IDIQ contract. The Offeror's cost proposal will be evaluated in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.4 to determine the reasonableness and realism of proposed costs. Cost analysis techniques may include, but are not limited to, the following: comparison to other proposal(s) received; comparison to previously proposed prices; published market prices; and comparison to the independent government cost estimate. The Government will conduct cost realism analysis in order to determine the probable cost of performance for each offeror and assess the risk of performance due to unrealistically low prices. Note that unrealistically low or high proposed costs or prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirement or has made an unrealistic proposal. The Government will calculate any necessary adjustments for Most Probable Costs (MPC). Offers should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness and realism. The proposed cost will not be numerically scored, but will be used in the tradeoff among non-cost evaluation factors (excluding Security) to determine the overall best value to the Government. The Government’s evaluation of the Cost Factor will be based on all proposed cost/price related data. The Government will also subjectively evaluate the proposed total compensation plan in accordance with FAR 52.222-46.

M.3.6.2 The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) is the combined sum of the base period and option period CLINs within the Common Services Task Order and Air Task Order (including the FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services). The TEP will be used in the tradeoff analysis between price/cost and non-price/cost factors to determine best value.

Evaluation of Options: Evaluation of Options, including FAR 52.217-8 “Option to Extend Services”, will be conducted in accordance with FAR 52.217-5. The Government will evaluate the total price/cost of the “Option to Extend Services” for Task Order 0001 by factoring 50% of the evaluated price for Option Year 4.

For cost reimbursable CLINs, the Government has provided specific values that shall be placed in the Offeror's proposal. These values are provided in the Proposal Pricing Template (Attachment L-10).