Sec J Atch 9 - Sect M - for final RFP 04.25.12.docx

Section M: Evaluation Factors for Award

HQ0147-11-R-0006

Upgraded Early Warning Radar & COBRA DANE (UEWR & CD) Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) Integration & Test (UEWR & CD BIT) Section M:

Evaluation Factors for Award for

HQ0147-11-R-0006

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table Index

The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated against factors and the criteria specified in Section M-of the solicitation.

M-03 BASIS FOR AWARD

This is a best-value competitive source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) 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 IAW FAR 9.1; have an accounting system adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract IAW FAR 16.301-3(a)(1) and FAR 9.104-1; meet all requirements of the solicitation, including compliance with FAR 52.219-14(b)(1), Limitations on Subcontracting; conform to all required terms and conditions, and include applicable 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 will evaluate the small business compliance plan of each Offeror and make a determination of acceptable or unacceptable. Award eligibility is predicated on an acceptable small business compliance plan determination by the Government. The Offeror’s plan to comply with FAR 52.219-14(b)(1) will be evaluated to ensure that at least 50% of the cost of the contract performance incurred for personnel are expended for employees of the concern (as defined in FAR 19.001). If it is determined by the Government that the Offeror will not meet this standard, the Offeror will not be eligible for award

At the Government’s discretion, a competitive range determination may be utilized in accordance with FAR 15.306. Offerors are hereby notified that in accordance with 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 in accordance with FAR 15.503, whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with 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 significantly more important than Past Performance. When the three factors are combined, they are significantly more important than the Cost/Price factor. The Technical and Management Subfactors are in descending order of importance, e.g., Management Subfactor 1, Staffing, is more important than Management Subfactor 2, Program Management. Even though 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 technical superiority and/or overall business approach and/or superior past performance of the higher price Offeror outweighs the cost/price difference. 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 Final Proposal Revisions 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. Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the final proposal revision, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

M-04 Basis for Rejection Proposals with contingent terms and conditions may be deemed non-responsive 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. The judgment 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 FAR 15.306. Offerors are hereby notified that in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(2), the PCO may limit, with 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 Offerors’ of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range in accordance with FAR 15.503, whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505.

M-05 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

M-05.1 Factors and Subfactors The SSA will select the Offeror whose proposal is considered the best value to the Government consistent with the factors and subfactors listed below.

Evaluation Factors

Factor 1 (F1): Technical

Subfactor TS1: Test Planning and Execution

Subfactor TS2: Analysis Support

Subfactor TS3: Test Infrastructure

Factor 2 (F2): Management

Subfactor MS1: Staffing

Subfactor MS2: Program Management

Subfactor MS3: Integrated Master Schedule

Subfactor MS4: Transition Planning

Factor 3 (F3): Past Performance

Factor 4 (F4): Cost/Price

Table M-05-1 Evaluation Factors/Subfactors

Each Technical and Management subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in Table M-05-2 and one of the risk ratings described in Table M-05-3. The Technical and Management subfactor ratings focus on the strengths, uncertainties, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Past Performance and assign a performance confidence assessment.

M-05.2 Factor Rating Information Each Technical and Management subfactor will receive one of the ratings described in Table M-05-2. 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.

Table M-05-2 Technical and Management Ratings

M-05.3 Risk Rating Each technical and management subfactor will receive one of the risk ratings defined in Table M-05-3 (Risk Ratings) below. The Government will evaluate risks associated with each technical and management subfactor. The Government will assess the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, and the need for increased Government oversight, as well as the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Table M-05-3 Risk Ratings

M-05.4 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.

Definition

Table M-05-4 Evaluation Definitions

M-06 EVALUATION

M-06.1 Technical Factor (Factor 1) The Government will evaluate the overall technical capability and approach of each Offeror. Each subfactor within the Technical factor will receive one of the color ratings described in Table M-05-2. The Government will assess risk associated at the subfactor level focused on weaknesses associated with the Offeror’s proposed technical approach. Each subfactor within the Technical factor will receive one of the risk ratings described in Table M-05-3.

M-06.1.1 Technical Subfactor 1 (TS1): Test Planning and Execution The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach for accomplishing BMDS flight and ground testing as described in the IDIQ contract (hereafter IDIQ SOW) and Task Order 0001, Section 3.10. This includes evaluation of the Offeror’s approach for reviewing requirements; planning, integrating, and executing a test plan for a typical ground and flight test event. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s data management capability. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s adaptability to support additional test efforts in extenuating circumstances due to changes or special situations that may occur during the work in progress for a specific ground or flight test event in accordance with the IDIQ SOW Section 5.

M-06.1.2 Technical Subfactor 2 (TS2): Analysis Support The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s radar analysis capability as discussed throughout the IDIQ SOW and Task Order 0001, Section 3.10. This includes the skills, techniques and tools that will be applied to all UEWR and COBRA DANE testing as well as BTIR root cause determination. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to perform pre-test predictive analysis. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to support the Joint Analysis Team (JAT) and participate in post-test reviews. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to support UEWR and COBRA DANE Models and Simulations efforts in accordance with IDIQ SOW Section 3.12.

M-06.1.3 Technical Subfactor 3 (TS3): Test Infrastructure The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s HWIL operations capability in accordance with the IDIQ SOW and Task Order 0001 Sections 3.9, 3.10.2 and 3.10.5. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to sustain the UEWR and COBRA DANE software in each of the labs in a Benchmark 1 (BM1) state of readiness as well as appropriate configuration management procedures and tools for component certification.

M-06.2 Management Factor (Factor 2) The Government will evaluate the overall management capability of each Offeror. Each subfactor within the Management factor will receive one of the color ratings described in Table M-05-2. The Government will assess risk associated at the subfactor level focused on weaknesses associated with the Offeror’s proposed management approach. Each subfactor within the Management factor will receive one of the risk ratings described in Table M-05-3.

M-06.2.1 Management Subfactor 1 (MS1): Staffing The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s staffing plan to include teaming agreements, personnel categories, and timing of staffing actions. This includes staffing a cadre of knowledgeable, capable HWIL operators to meet the Missile Defense Agency’s (MDA) Integrated Master Test Plan (IMTP) requirements. The Government will evaluate any surge, core expertise, and/or reach-back capability necessary to support multiple on-going test events and test related activities as outlined in the IDIQ SOW and Task Order 0001. The Government will evaluate test staffing plans including surge staffing for all labs as required and approach to accomplishing unique test events.

M-06.2.2 Management Subfactor 2 (MS2): Program Management The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Program Management Plan including Business Operations, Contract Management, Facility Security and Personnel Security, Program Operations, Risk, Developmental Labs Maintenance and Safety, Quality, and Mission Assurance. The Government will evaluate how the Program Management process described in the plan will enable planning, controlling, directing, monitoring, reporting and managing test events as specified in IDIQ SOW and Task Order 0001 Section 3.1. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach with managing Subcontractor, Teaming partners, joint venture partners and/or Associates. In addition, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach at identifying, communicating and resolving potential resource conflicts associated with multiple, independent Government contractors engaged in on-going Advanced Research Center (ARC) efforts.

M-06.2.3 Management Subfactor 3 (MS3): Integrated Master Schedule The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach and understanding for accomplishing the entire effort as demonstrated in the proposed Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) prepared IAW DI-MGMT-81650 to support the first BMDS Ground and Flight Tests listed in the IDIQ SOW and Task Order 0001 paragraphs 3.10.2 and 3.10.3 of Task Order 0001. This includes the narrative that describes the purpose for and importance of all significant events, the representative sample of accomplishments and all criteria associated with one accomplishment for each ground and flight test. The Government will evaluate representative risk categories and potential impacts as well as critical path elements and key dependencies. The Government will evaluate the Gantt chart view of the IMS as well as the correlation between the proposed staffing profile in Subfactor 1 and the IMS.

M-06.2.4 Management Subfactor 4 (MS4): Transition Planning The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s transition plan to include teaming agreements, personnel categories, and timing of staffing actions. This includes core or key team composition at contract award and the staffing profile through the first 60 days after contract award. The Government will evaluate the build-up, training needs to include any pre-qualified and existing experience, and ability to execute within the first 60 days. Additionally, the Government will evaluate the extent that the issues of database integrity and transition, operational tempo, facility access, personnel and traceability are dealt with, especially with respect to managing any possible impact to current operations. Further, the Government will also evaluate any resumes pertinent to the transition period as provided in the Transition Plan.

M-06.3 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 the IDIQ SOW and Task Order 0001 exceeds 20 percent (in cost) (excluding ODC and Travel) 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 of the principal Offeror. The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an Offeror’s ability to perform as proposed based on a demonstrated record of relevant quality performance.

M-06.3.1 Performance Confidence Assessment Based on an integrated assessment of recency, relevancy, and quality of worked performed, the Government will determine and assign an overall Performance Confidence Assessment for the Past Performance Factor. The Government may consider past performance information 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 Officials; and Defense Contract Management Agency. Past performance information 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 size, complexity and scope that was delivered within budget and on schedule. This rating will represent an overall assessment of Offeror’s past performance. The Government will review Past Performance Information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to the performance confidence assessment. A Satisfactory Confidence assessment will be more advantageous than an Unknown Confidence (Neutral) assessment. 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 an "Unknown Confidence (Neutral)" assessment for the Past Performance Factor. A more recent and relevant record of favorable performance will 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 Performance Conficence Assessments:

Table M-06-1 Performance Confidence Assessments

M-06.3.2 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 being performed during the five (5) year period preceding 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. Past performance information that does not meet the above conditions will be considered not recent and will not be considered for evaluation.

M-06.3.3 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 factor/subfactors. In assessing relevancy, consideration will be given to the following:

· The extent of similarity between the service/support effort;

· Complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming;

· The extent of similarity between prior experience with radars testing, operating and performing data analysis with regard to the UEWR and COBRA DANE radars.

Additionally, the Government will consider the Contractor’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 may consider as relevant, efforts performed for other agencies of federal, state, or local Governments, and commercial customers. More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the performance confidence assessment than less relevant efforts. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a neutral/unknown confidence assessment. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence assessment 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:

Table M-06-2 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

M-06.3.4 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:

Table M-06-3 Performance Assessment Rating

M-06.3.5 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 past performance information 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-06.4 Cost/Price Factor (Factor 4) Evaluation of an Offeror’s proposal shall be based on the information presented in the proposal and information available to the contracting office from sources deemed appropriate. Sources typically considered include the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), Defense Contract Management Administration offices, and other contracts for similar items or services, and known commercial sources.

M-06.4.1 Government Evaluation The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s price proposal using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404. The cost factor evaluation is comprised of an assessment of affordability, reasonableness and cost realism. The Total Evaluated Price will be presented to the SSA for consideration in making the award determination. Cost/Price will not receive a color rating. Travel and ODC will not be evaluated.

M-06.4.2 Affordability An unaffordable proposal may be eliminated from consideration for award at during the proposal evaluation process if the SSA determines elimination to be in the best interest of the Government.

M-06.4.3 Price Reasonableness Price Reasonableness will be determined by comparison of the competitively proposed Evaluated Target Prices. In the event that Contracting Officer determines competition was not adequate for any reason then proposals will be evaluated to assess the reasonableness using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404 such as cost analysis.

M-06.4.4 Cost Realism 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 technical proposal. The burden of proof for cost realism rests with the Offeror. Accordingly, proposals will be evaluated to assess the likelihood that the technical and management approaches such as the quantity and mix of labor proposed can successfully accomplish the task at the Target Price proposed. Cost realism may be used in performance of risk assessments and responsibility determinations. Cost realism issues that increase the risk of quality or service shortfalls will be presented to the SSA. Furthermore, unrealistic cost/price may be reflected in lower evaluation ratings in the Technical and Management subfactors.

M-06.4.5 Total Evaluated Price The Total Evaluated Price for selection and determination of best value is defined in Section L-10.3.2.

Section M – 25 April 2012 image1.png