Atch 10 - Evaluation Factors for Award -Section M_28 FEB 2012.pdf

Clear-Cod Section M

28 February 2012

HQ0147-11-R-0002

PART IV—REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M—EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Clear/Cod Radar

HQ0147-11-R-0002

TABLE OF CONTENTS

M-01. PROVISION INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

M-02. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR AWARD AND OFFEROR

RESPONSIBILITY

M-03. BASIS FOR AWARD

M-03.1 COMPETITIVE, BEST-VALUE SOURCE SELECTION

M-03.2 FACTOR RATING INFORMATION

M-04. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

M-04.1 FACTORS/SUB-FACTORS AND THEIR RELATIVE ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

M-04.2 FACTOR RATING INFORMATION

M-04.3 RISK RATING

M-04.4 EVALUATION DEFINITIONS

M-05. EVALUATION

M-05.1 TECHNICAL FACTOR (FACTOR 1)

M-05.1.1 Technical Sub-factor 1 (TS1): Signal Processor and Data Processor (SP/DP) M-05.1.2 Technical Sub-factor 2 (TS2): Radar Software M-05.1.3 Technical Sub-factor 3 (TS3): Information Assurance (IA) M-05.1.4 Technical Sub-factor 4 (TS4): Hardware Obsolescence Redesign and Life Cycle Cost Management

M-05.2 MANAGEMENT FACTOR (FACTOR 2)

M-05.2.1 Management Sub-factor 1 (MS1): Program Management M-05.2.2 Management Sub-factor 2 (MS2): Systems Engineering M-05.2.3 Management Sub-Factor 3 (MS3): Facilities Execution Modifications M-05.2.4 Management Sub-factor 4 (MS4): Small Business Participation & Commitment

M-05.3 PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR (FACTOR 3)

M-05.3.1 Performance Confidence Assessment M-05.3.2 Recency Assessment M-05.3.3 Relevancy Assessment M-05.3.4 Quality Assessment M-05.3.5 Small Business Utilization M-05.3.6 Adverse Past Performance

M-05.4 COST/PRICE FACTOR (FACTOR 4)

M-05.4.1 Affordability, Reasonableness and Realism M-05.4.2 Overall Evaluated Probable Cost/Price

TABLE INDEX

HQ0147-11-R-0002

TABLE M-04.1 EVALUATION FACTORS/SUB-FACTORS

TABLE M-04.2 TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT RATINGS

TABLE M-04.3 RISK RATINGS

TABLE M-04.4 PROPOSAL EVALUATION DEFINITIONS

TABLE M-05.1 PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

TABLE M-05.2 PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

TABLE M-05.3 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT RATING

TABLE M-05.4 SMALL BUSINESS UTILIZATION PERFORMANCE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS

M-01. PROVISION INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

NOTICES: Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Solicitation Provision 52.217-5 titled Evaluation of

Options and dated July 1990 is hereby incorporated by reference.

: References to SOW paragraphs within this section refer to the SOW Section in its entirety, including subsections.

M-02. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR AWARD AND OFFEROR RESPONSIBILITY

The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated against factors and the criteria specified in section M and the following conditions and as stated elsewhere in this Section M:

Each Offeror’s adherence to terms and conditions set forth in Part I, the Schedule, and Part II, Contract Clauses of this solicitation, and the offeror's Section K Representations, Certifications, Other Statements of Offerors in meeting applicable requirements of law and regulation.

The Government will only award this contract to an organization that has CMMI level 3 in the three years preceding this RFP release.

Each Offeror’s Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Plan will be evaluated to include but not be limited to the offeror’s approach to avoid or mitigate OCI’s.

M-03. BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government plans to award a hybrid contract, utilizing several contract types and fee structures, resulting from this solicitation. This is a best-value competitive source selection conducted in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, as supplemented by the Defense FAR Supplement

(DFARS) 215.3. To be eligible for award, the Offeror must be deemed responsible in accordance with

FAR 9.1; meet the requirements of the solicitation; conform to the required terms and conditions; and, include all required certifications. Proposals with contingent terms and conditions may be deemed unacceptable and could result in the rejection of an Offeror’s proposal.

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in cost/price when compared to the Government cost realism analysis, or such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of understanding/competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of all stated requirements. The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the correction potential of any deficiency or problem. The judgment

HQ0147-11-R-0002

of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If any aspect of an

Offeror’s proposal not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range, if applicable. The Government will use this information to support competitive range and contract award decisions, as applicable.

At the Government's discretion, a competitive range determination may be utilized in accordance with

(IAW) FAR 15.306. Offerors are hereby notified that IAW FAR 15.306(c)(2), the Procuring Contracting

Officer (PCO) may limit, with Source Selection Authority (SSA) approval, the number of the most highly rated proposals to a number at which an efficient competition can be conducted. The PCO will notify any

Offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range IAW FAR 15.503, whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

M-03.1 Competitive, Best-Value Source Selection

The Government will select for award the most advantageous proposal representing the best value to the

Government based upon an integrated assessment of Technical, Management, Past Performance, and

Cost/Price factors. The Technical and Management Factors are equal, and each individually is more important than Past Performance. When the three factors are combined, they are significantly more important than the Cost/Price factor. Even though Cost/Price is a substantial factor in source selection, this competition may result in an award to a higher-rated, higher-priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the perceived benefit of the higher price Offeror merits the additional Cost/Price. While the

Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

M-03.2 Factor Rating Information

If final proposal revisions are requested, any revisions or non-concurrence with contract terms and conditions submitted in the final proposal revision may not be subject to further discussion or negotiation.

Hence, any new or revised terms and conditions that are not solicited and, if submitted in the final proposal revision, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government

M-04. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

M-04.1 Factors/Sub-factors and Their Relative Order of Importance

The SSA will select the Offeror whose proposal is considered the best value to the Government consistent with the factors and sub-factors listed below.

HQ0147-11-R-0002

Table M-04.1 Evaluation Factors/Sub-factors

Each Technical and Management sub-factor will receive one of the color ratings described in Table M-

04.2 and one of the risk ratings described in Table M-04.3. The Technical and Management subfactor ratings focus on the strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, deficiencies, and uncertainties. The

Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Past Performance, including small business utilization, and assign a performance assessment.

M-04.2 Factor Rating Information

Each Technical and Management sub-factor will receive one of the ratings described in Table M-04.2.

The color ratings will be determined by meeting or exceeding all of the criteria for each sub-factor. For the purposes of the Green Acceptable color rating regarding the quantity of strengths, the Government interprets the description to mean that it will not require any strengths to be considered Acceptable.

Evaluation Factors Relative Importance Factor 1 (F1): Technical Equal importance to management factor. Factor

1 Technical subfactors are listed in descending order of importance.

Sub-factor TS1: Signal Processor and Data

Processor

Sub-factor TS2: Radar Software Sub-factor TS3: Information Assurance Sub-factor TS4: Hardware Obsolescence

Redesign and Life Cycle Cost Management

Factor 2 (F2): Management Equal importance to technical. Factor 2

Management subfactors are listed in descending order of importance.

Sub-factor MS1: Program Management Sub-factor MS2: Systems Engineering Sub-factor MS3 Facilities Modifications Sub-factor MS4: Small Business Participation

& Commitment

Factor 3 (F3): Past Performance

Less important than F1 or F2 individually

Factor 4 (F4): Cost/Price When combined, the non-Cost/Price Factors (F1

Technical, F2 Management and F3 Past

Performance) are significantly more important than F4 Cost/Price.

HQ0147-11-R-0002

Color Rating Description

BLUE Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

PURPLE Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

GREEN Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has no deficiencies.

YELLOW Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

RED Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

Table M-04.2 Technical and Management Ratings

M-04.3 Risk Rating

Each of the technical and management sub-factors will receive one of the Risk ratings defined in Table

M-04.3 below. The Government will evaluate risks associated with each technical and management sub-factor except the Small Business Participation and Commitment Management sub-factor. The

Government will assess the potential for disruption of schedule to include the Joint Master Schedule

(JMS), increased cost, degradation of performance, and the need for increased Government oversight, as well as the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

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 some 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 M-04.3 Risk Ratings

M-04.4 Evaluation Definitions

Each proposal will be evaluated against the solicitation and its stated evaluation factors and subfactors for award. The Government’s Technical and Management evaluation will focus on compliance with solicitation requirements and the proposal’s strengths, uncertainties, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies.

HQ0147-11-R-0002

Definition

Strength An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Uncertainty A doubt regarding whether an aspect of the proposal meets a material performance or capability requirement. It requires additional information from the offeror to further explain the proposal before the evaluator can complete his/her review and analysis and should generate an EN.

Deficiency 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.

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

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

Table M-04.4 Proposal Evaluation Definitions

M-05. EVALUATION

M-05.1 Technical Factor (Factor 1)

The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical capability and approach of each

Offeror. The evaluation will focus on compliance with solicitation requirements.

M-05.1.1 Technical Sub-factor 1 (TS1): Signal Processor and Data Processor (SP/DP)

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical solution to and likelihood of achieving the requirements of Statement of Work (SOW) sections 3.3 and 5.3 as they relate to the design and implementation of the SP/DP, giving consideration to the feasibility, obsolescence and availability issues.

Additionally the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach for:

The design and implementation schedule of the SP/DP solution through Critical Design Review

(CDR) to Operational Acceptance (OA) at Beale to decrease the risk in deploying SP/DP to Clear, and integration with the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) such that the OA at Clear is completed no later than the end of FY 2016 and at Cod no later than the end of FY 2017.

Viability of the Offeror’s deployment, formal testing, and acceptance of the SP/DP suite at the CISF and at Beale and then integration of that solution within the Clear upgrade. The Government will evaluate your selection of specific Prime Item Development Specification (PIDS) Revision G requirements for inclusion in the formal verification and regression testing and your rationale for use of in-plant, CISF and site equipment to confirm that the re-hosted SP/DP subsystem continues to meet system performance for Upgraded Early Warning Radar (UEWR).

HQ0147-11-R-0002

Scalability, flexibility, extensibility, and robustness of the design to enable future implementation of emerging requirements (Ballistic Missile Defense System Specification, PIDS Revision H, and beyond) without requiring significant replacement of the SP/DP suite developed to satisfy PIDS Rev

G while minimizing cost, schedule, and technical risk.

M-05.1.2 Technical Sub-factor 2 (TS2): Radar Software

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical solution to and likelihood of achieving the requirements of SOW section 3.3.1 and 5.3.1 and the Offeror's approach for providing a robust software integrated development process and a robust software quality process that will minimize software defects, development and implementation time, and software lifecycle sustainment costs.

M-05.1.3 Technical Sub-factor 3 (TS3): Information Assurance (IA)

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical solution to and likelihood of achieving the IA requirements in SOW sections 3.2.6 and 5.2.6 and as an inherent part of addressing SOW sections 3.3 and

5.3. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s IA approach as follows:

Offeror’s approach demonstrates a clear understanding of the challenges of Information

Assurance and provides a balanced approach (i.e., protection, performance, cost and functionality) for implementing security engineering such that the Clear certification is complete by the end of FY 2016 and Cape Cod certification is complete by the end of FY 2017.

Offeror’s approach demonstrates a clear understanding of the DoD Information Assurance

Certification and Accreditation Process (DIACAP) and addresses high-risk IA requirements.

The Offeror’s proposal for evidence of sufficient IA expertise and certifications of the proposed team in order to implement IA requirements.

M-05.1.4 Technical Sub-factor 4 (TS4): Hardware Obsolescence Redesign and Life Cycle Cost

Management

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical solution to and likelihood of achieving the requirements of SOW section 3.3.2.1. Additionally, the government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach as follows:

Offeror’s approach demonstrated a clear understanding of the requirements for hardware obsolescence redesign.

The ability of the proposed design to reduce the impact, frequency, and lifecycle cost of performing obsolescence upgrades.

The ability of hardware solutions to be form/fit/function replacements allowing for retrofit of their design into the Beale, Fylingdales, and Thule UEWRs without significant re-engineering or sustaining engineering costs.

M-05.2 Management Factor (Factor 2)

The Government management evaluation team will evaluate the management capability of each Offeror.

The evaluation will focus on compliance with solicitation requirements

HQ0147-11-R-0002

M-05.2.1 Management Sub-factor 1 (MS1): Program Management

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach for accomplishing SOW sections 3.1 and

5.1 requirements for Program Management. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's understanding of the program baseline and their disciplined processes to manage changes to this baseline at the contract and subcontract level. The government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach for accomplishing any required and proposed sub-contract management and the proposed approach of resolving potential schedule conflicts associated with these subcontractors. The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the requirements flow down process to the sub-contractors and their performance. The Government will also evaluate the proposed approach of orchestrating multiple independent contractors engaged in work at Clear (and Cape Cod, as appropriate) to include associated contractor coordination/deconfliction in order to avoid program delays and cost overruns. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine the sufficiency of the technical and management personnel proposed for the duration of this contract to ensure successful completion of their proposed IMS. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s IMS demonstrates a thorough understanding of the requirements, is consistent with the JMS as available in the Offerors’ Library as of the date of the RFP release, and is an executable plan to deliver the upgrade within cost and schedule.

M-05.2.2 Management Sub-factor 2 (MS2): Systems Engineering

The Government will evaluate how your Systems Engineering processes will support accomplishing the requirements in SOW sections 3.2 and 5.2.

The Government will evaluate any relevant certifications you have achieved (e.g., ISO 9001, Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) ratings, etc.) and how the underlying processes will be applied to this contract effort. The Government will evaluate the evidence of this certification; including summary findings of the independent certification agent. The government is particularly interested in CMMI Development (CMMI DEV), Acquisition (CMMI ACQ) and

Integrated Product and Process Development (CMMI IPPD) assessments.

The Government will evaluate how your approach will be sound and executable to assure a robust systems engineering approach is in place for all aspects (excluding Software Engineering and Information Assurance which are included under Technical Subfactor 2) to include at a minimum Configuration Management (CM), Data Management (DM), and Risk (and opportunity) Management. The Government will evaluate how these processes will be implemented to develop, integrate, and sustain UEWR capabilities in accordance with the SOW.

The Government will evaluate the flexibility of these processes to address evolving operational needs, differences between particular site baselines, and potential technical changes.

The Government will evaluate how your approach will improve technical solutions, avoid significant delays and avoid cost increases. The Government will evaluate how any subcontractors performing on this contract will provide consistent process application and

HQ0147-11-R-0002

M-05.2.3 Management Sub-Factor 3 (MS3): Facilities Execution Modifications

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach and likelihood of successful accomplishment of

SOW sections 3.6.1 and 5.6.1.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's approach to coordinating their design with the Clear

MILCON design and their proposal regarding interfaces.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's approach for accomplishing the facilities construction at Clear to include facilities modification.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's approach for facilities execution to complete the

FRD, design, and construction for the Cape Cod option.

M-05.2.4 Management Sub-factor 4 (MS4): Small Business Participation & Commitment

The Government will evaluate small business participation and commitment as measured against the total contract value. Evaluation ratings for participation dollars will be based on the degree to which the proposed values attain the UEWR minimum targets listed in Section L-07.3.4 Table L-07. As part of this evaluation, the Government will consider each Offeror's commitment to use small businesses in terms of the type of work to be performed, the extent to which specific companies are named in the proposal and whether documented commitments are demonstrated in their proposal. Offerors will also be evaluated to assess the number and expected near and far-term benefits to the MDA of proposed new, contract-specific small business initiatives and the extent to which Offerors have in place effective procedures to ensure proper flow-down of requirements, process management, and performance assessments of small business utilization at lower tiers.

M-05.3 Past Performance Factor (Factor 3)

The Government will conduct a past performance assessment of the Offeror, key subcontractors, major subcontractors, and /or subsidiaries. Key subcontractors, teaming partners, or joint venture partners are those whose failure of performance could cause failure of the total project. Major subcontractors, teaming partners, or joint venture partners are those whose proposed effort to perform exceeds 20 percent of the total effort based on the total proposed cost. Past performance regarding predecessor companies or key subcontractors, and/or subsidiaries that will perform critical aspects of the requirement will be considered the same as Past Performance Information (PPI) of the principal Offeror. The past performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an Offeror’s ability to perform, including Cost/Price and schedule, based on a demonstrated record of recent and relevant quality

M-05.3.1 Performance Confidence Assessment

Performance confidence will be rated at the past performance factor level based on an integrated assessment of recency, relevancy, quality of worked performed, and small business utilization, if applicable. The Government may consider PPI from individual contract references and in the aggregate.

In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to use both information provided by the Offeror, as well as information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee

Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System

(eSRS), other databases, interviews with program managers, contracting officers and Fee Determining

HQ0147-11-R-0002

Officials; and Defense Contract Management Agency. PPI may be obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition. Assessments may include Government site visit(s) and surveys of sources to validate performance information.

The past performance evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing the aspects of the Offeror’s past performance focusing on the Offeror’s history of providing its customers with a quality product/service on contracts of similar complexity and scope that was delivered within budget and on schedule. Offerors without a record of recent and relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a " Unknown Confidence (Neutral)" rating for the Past Performance Factor. A more recent and relevant record of favorable performance may result in a higher Performance Confidence Assessment than a less recent and/or relevant record of favorable performance.

The Past Performance Factor will receive one of the following Assessments:

Table M-05.1 Performance Confidence Assessments

M-05.3.2 Recency Assessment

The Government will assess performance information, including Past Performance Information (PPI) and

Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) data to determine if it is recent. For evaluation purposes, “recent” is defined as an effort that is ongoing or completed within the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance. PPI that does not meet the above conditions will be considered not recent and will not be considered for evaluation.

Rating Description Substantial

Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory

Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence

(Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

HQ0147-11-R-0002

M-05.3.3 Relevancy Assessment

The Government will evaluate recent performance information, including PPI and PPQ data, to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical, Management, and

Cost/Price factors and subfactors. In assessing relevancy, consideration will be given to:

The extent of similarity between the service/support effort;

Complexity, contract type, contract dollar value, program phase, division of company, major or key subcontractors, teaming partners and joint ventures;

The extent of similarity between prior experience and domain expertise in large software-based C2 systems and conventional long range radars, phased array radars or portions thereof

Additionally, the Government will consider the Offeror’s technical content and complexity, problem resolution, lessons learned, and customer satisfaction. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The government is particularly interested in relevant past performance and domain expertise in large software-based C2 systems and conventional long range radars, phased array radars or portions thereof. More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the performance confidence rating than less relevant efforts. A positive record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a neutral/unknown confidence rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

In considering how relevant an Offeror’s performance history is to this acquisition, the Government will assign one of the following relevancy ratings to each past performance citation:

Rating Definition Very Relevant (VR) Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

Somewhat Relevant (SR) Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

Table M-05.2 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

M-05.3.4 Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance level of recent, relevant efforts. The Government will assign one of the following performance ratings to each past performance citation:

HQ0147-11-R-0002

Degree Description Exceptional (E) Quality of performance met contractual requirements and exceeded many to the government benefit. The contract performance specification was accomplished with only minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. The contractor was pro-active in identification of problems, providing alternatives and recommendations.

Very Good (VG) Quality of performance met contractual requirements and exceeded some expectations. The contract scope of work was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Satisfactory (S) Quality of performance met contractual requirements. The contract scope of work was accomplished with some problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.

Marginal (M) Quality of performance did not meet some contractual requirements. The contract scope of work had some serious problems which the contractor did not resolve to the customer’s satisfaction. The contractor’s proposed corrective actions appeared to be only marginally effective or were not fully implemented by the contractor.

Unsatisfactory (U) Quality of performance did not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contract scope of work performance had major problems for which the contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective.

Not Applicable (N/A) The question does not apply. No performance record identifiable within the evaluation.

Table M-05.3 Performance Assessment Rating

M-05.3.5 Small Business Utilization

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s record to assess its utilization of small businesses and its past performance in achieving subcontracting goals established in prior subcontracting plans. Pursuant to

DFARS 215.305, the assessment will consider the extent to which the Offeror’s evaluated past performance complied with small business subcontracting objectives and goals in contracts which included FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business

Subcontracting Plan (large businesses only). The Offeror’s small business utilization past performance will be rated as defined in Table M-05.4 below.

HQ0147-11-R-0002

Rating Definition Exceeded From a percentage perspective, Offeror exceeded their established overall small business subcontracting goal and all but one subcategory goal.

Met From a percentage perspective, Offeror met their established overall small business subcontracting goal and all but two subcategory goals.

Did Not Meet From a percentage perspective, Offeror failed to meet their established overall small business subcontracting goal or more than two subcategory goals.

Unknown Unable to determine if the Offeror was required to formally support small business utilization efforts or was unable to obtain appropriate information to provide a qualitative rating.

Not Applicable Offeror’s contract did not meet threshold and requirements of

FAR 52.219.

Table M-05.4 Small Business Utilization Performance Ratings and Definitions

M-05.3.6 Adverse Past Performance

Adverse past performance information is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation aspect or verifiable unfavorable comments received from any available source, whether internal or external to the Government. When relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The

Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness. In accordance with FAR 15.306(b)(1)(i), communications must be held with any Offeror whose adverse PPI is the determining factor preventing it from being included in the competitive range, unless the Offeror has previously had the opportunity to comment on such information.

M-05.4 Cost/Price Factor (Factor 4)

M-05.4.1 Affordability, Reasonableness and Realism

The cost factor evaluation is comprised of an assessment of affordability, reasonableness and cost realism of the entire solicited effort, including all options. Cost realism issues and the overall evaluated probable cost/price will be presented to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for consideration in making the best value determination. Cost/Price will not receive a color rating. The Government will evaluate each

Offeror’s cost/price proposal using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404.

An unaffordable proposal may be eliminated if the Contracting Officer and the SSA determines elimination to be in the best interest of the Government.

Cost and Price Reasonableness will be determined by comparison of the competitively proposed target cost and profit for Fixed Price Incentive Fee (FPIF) CLINs and the competitively proposed cost and fee

HQ0147-11-R-0002

for cost type CLINs. In the event that the Contracting Officer determines competition was not adequate, proposals will be evaluated to assess the reasonableness using one or more of the techniques described in

FAR 15.404 such as cost analysis.

Cost realism analysis is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each

Offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the Offeror’s proposal. The burden of proof for cost realism rests with the Offeror. Accordingly, proposals will be evaluated to assess the likelihood that the proposed technical and management approach can successfully accomplish the SOW at the proposed target cost and profit for FPIF CLINs and the competitively proposed cost and fee for cost type CLINs.

Cost Realism may also be used in performance of risk assessments and responsibility determinations.

For cost type CLINS, the result of cost realism analysis is the probable cost. The probable cost may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost that is most likely to result from the Offeror’s proposal. Probable Cost will be used to determine the best value. The

Government’s evaluated probable cost will consist of the following elements:

When appropriate based on cost realism analysis, adjustments to proposed cost to realistic levels based on analysis of the proposed resources by the management and technical evaluation teams.

Adjustments to proposed direct and indirect costs, to realistic levels.

Adjustments for program cost resulting from the Offeror’s approach such as additional GFP requirements.

For fixed price type CLINs, cost information in the proposal that increase the risk of quality or service shortfalls will be presented to the SSA for consideration when determining best value and award.

M-05.4.2 Overall Evaluated Probable Cost/Price

The overall evaluated probable cost includes the likely cost to the government for all base and option

CLIN plus any additional costs. The overall evaluated probable cost/price will be the sum of:

The proposed target cost and target profit for FPIF CLINs.

The probable cost and proposed maximum award fee amount for the CPAF CLIN.

The probable cost and proposed target cost incentive fee amount (and the proposed performance/schedule target fee if applicable) for the CPIF CLINs.

For the CPFF (LOE) CLINs the probable cost is the probable annual composite fully burdened labor rates including the hourly fixed fee amount multiplied by 200 hours for GFY 12 and 2000 hours for subsequent GFYs.

The proposed price of the FFP CLIN.

The total amount of any additional costs to the Government which are necessary to support the

Offeror’s unique approach (e.g. government furnished equipment, information, facilities, and any other government property proposed by the Offeror).