HQ085021R0001 Attachment 3 - Evaluation Factors.pdf

Solicitation HQ085021R0001 Attachment 3

Evaluation Factors for Award Title: SDA Tranche 0 Launch Services

4 October 2020

1 Basis for Contract Award Award of a FFP contract will be made on a competitive basis, using Best Value Tradeoff among price and non-price factors as described in FAR 15.101. Thus, the Government may elect to award to other than the lowest priced Offeror, or other than the highest technically rated Offeror. The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract on the basis established in this solicitation. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government may reject any or all proposals if such action is in the best interest of the Government; and waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals received.

In making its award decision, the Government will use the evaluation factors shown in Section 1.1. The Government will not assume that the Offeror possesses any capability or knowledge unless it is specified in the proposal.

The successful Offerors will need to be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR subpart 9.1, as supplemented by Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and proposals must conform to the solicitation’s requirements to be eligible for award. While the Government strives for maximum objectivity in its evaluations, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective, and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.1 Evaluation Methodology

The following evaluation Factors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Table 1

1.2 Relative Importance of Factors

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than price (Factors 2, 3, 4 and 5), when combined, are approximately equal to price (Factor 1). Within the evaluation factors, Factor 2 - Schedule is more important

Outstanding Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable

Outstanding Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable

5 Small Business Utilization Acceptable Unacceptable

Acceptable UnacceptablePast Performance - Confidence

2 Schedule

3 Technical/Technical Risk

Factors Rating Methodology

1 Price Reasonable Not Reasonable than Factor 3 – Combined Technical/Risk. Factor 4 – Past Performance and Factor 5 – Small Business Utilization are less important than the other Factors.

2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government will make one (1) award to the Offeror that provides the best value for this requirement in accordance with the solicitation. The Government reserves the right to make no awards at all.

3 General Instructions The Government will evaluate, in accordance with this attachment, information that the Offeror provides in response to Attachment 2- Tranche 0 Launch Services Proposal Instructions. Proposals must conform to this Request for Proposal (RFP). Any submitted proposal that does not adhere to the requirements in this RFP may be eliminated from the competition and become ineligible for award.

3.1 Discussions

The Government anticipates participating in discussions after it makes a competitive range determination of the most highly rated proposals based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria (FAR 15.306(c)). The Government may request Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) from all Offerors who remain in the competitive range (see Section 4 - Competitive Range below). Any proposal updates shall be evaluated according to the evaluation criteria specified in Section 5 through Section 9. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions.

3.2 Solicitation Requirements

Offerors are required to meet or exceed all solicitation requirements, e.g. terms and conditions, small business subcontracting plan submissions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as Factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. The Government intends to cross-reference between volumes and sections of volumes to support proposal evaluation.

4 Competitive Range In accordance with FAR 15.306, an Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range at any time during discussions if the Offeror is no longer considered to be among the most highly rated. This elimination can occur whether or not all material aspects of the proposal have been discussed, or if the Offeror has been afforded an opportunity to submit a FPR. The Contracting Officer 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.

5 Evaluation of Factor 1: Price The Offeror’s pricing will be evaluated for reasonableness, i.e., a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the marketplace. The evaluation team will conduct a price analysis based upon Offeror data, data provided by other U.S. Government customers, market research, and independent cost estimates. The Contracting Officer will also determine if there is adequate price competition in the marketplace for this service. The Government will assess if one Offeror’s price is unjustifiably higher or lower than what a prudent person would pay given adequate competition in the marketplace. Additionally Offerors’ price will be reviewed for alignment to SDA’s proposed payment schedule. The Government may use data external to the Offeror's proposal such as, but not limited to, field pricing reports, industry information, Government estimates, same or similar DoD contracts, and commercial data when evaluating price reasonableness. Lower reasonable prices will be evaluated more favorably under this Factor.

The Government will assign an overall Factor 1 - Price rating as described in Table 2 below.

Table 2

Proposals that are determined to be “Not Reasonable” will be Ineligible for award

6 Evaluation of Factor 2: Schedule The Government will assess the Offeror’s understanding and approach in satisfying all objectives contained in the Attachment 1 – Statement of Work based on information provided by the Offeror in its proposal. This assessment will include the Offeror’s ability to deliver on orbit the T0 space into orbit as close as possible to September 2022, but no later than 31 March 2023, and the reasonableness and realism of the proposed schedule to meet these objectives within the specified period of performance. Offerors that credibly demonstrate an ability to successfully deliver on orbit the T0 space vehicles closer to September 2022 will receive a higher rating for Factor 2 – Schedule. The evaluation will be based on the Offeror’s proposed schedule and supporting explanatory text, and identified schedule risks. These artifacts will be evaluated on their ability to demonstrate understanding of tasks and activities required to accomplish the work, sequencing of these tasks and activities, identified dependencies and other schedule relationships, identified external giver/receiver relationships, identification of critical path activities, proposed schedule margin, number and validity of schedule assumption, and milestones and other schedule performance criteria to manage progress against the proposed schedule and satisfy Statement of Work objectives. Technical solutions and assessment of technical risks as well as “Supporting Pricing Data” (see RFP Attachment 2) may be used by the Government to evaluate the reasonableness and risks associated with the proposed schedule. The Government will assign an overall Factor 2 - Schedule rating as described in Table 3 below.

Table 3

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal greatly exceeds the required schedule, contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal exceeds the required schedule, contains at least one strength, and risk of unacceptable performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets the required schedule and risk of unsuccessful performance is no greater than moderate.

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Reasonable Proposal is in family with Prices offered in the marketplace and/or prices offered to other U.S. Government customers, market research, and independent cost estimates.

Not Reasonable Proposal is out of family with Prices offered in the marketplace and/or prices offered to other U.S. Government customers, market research, and independent cost estimates.

Marginal Proposal may meet the required schedule and risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the required schedule, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is Ineligible for award.

The Government will assign significant strengths, strengths, and/or deficiencies, weaknesses, and significant weaknesses to the Offeror’s proposal to arrive at the overall Factor 2 – Schedule rating.

Strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in descending order of a positive evaluation by the Government are defined as follows:

• Significant Strength is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal that exceeds the specified schedule or capability requirements in a way that will be very advantageous to the Government during contract performance

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

• Weakness is a flaw in the Offeror’s proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

• Significant Weakness is a flaw in the Offeror’s proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

• Deficiency is a material failure of an Offeror’s 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

Offerors receiving a Factor 2 - Schedule rating of Unacceptable will be Ineligible for award.

7 Evaluation of Factor 3: Combined Technical/Technical Risk The Government will assess the Offeror’s understanding and approach in satisfying all objectives in the Attachment 1 – Statement of Work based on information provided by the Offeror in its proposal. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed technical approach, technical risks, risk reduction and mitigation plans with emphasis on launch performance and integration as identified in the SOW. The Offeror should demonstrate with details how it will launch the twenty-eight (28)-satellite constellation starting in September 2022.

The Government will evaluate how the Offeror’s proposed launch vehicle, launch facility and SV Processing Facility, launch operations and security meet the mission success criterion to provide a highly reliable launch service with a low risk of technical failure (e.g. launch failure). Offerors that propose launch solutions which demonstrate low technical risk and/or flight-proven launch systems will be evaluated more favorably.

The Government will evaluate the analysis and methodology used to calculate the mass-to-orbit capability.

The analysis and methodology should be based on either demonstrated flight performance or engineering data along with the launch origination point (e.g., Eastern/Western Range, etc.) used for the calculation.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s identified risks associated with its launch solution and explanation of its mitigation strategy.

Finally, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s solution to provide the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Secondary Payload Adapter (ESPA) assemblies and satellite separation systems and how it will work with each SV contractor and MSE&I contractor in procuring and integrating the satellite separation systems.

The combined Technical/Risk rating will include consideration of the significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies. The combined Technical/Risk evaluation will use the combined Technical/Risk ratings listed in in Table 4 below.

Table 4

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding 1. Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements, and

2. Proposal contains a significant strength or multiple strengths/significant strengths, and

3. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good 1. Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements, and either

a. Proposal contains at least one significant strength, or multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate, or

b. Proposal contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable 1. Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and

2. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no greater than moderate.

Marginal 1. Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and

2. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable 1. Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation and, contains one of more deficiencies, and/or

2. Risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

3. Proposal is Ineligible for award.

The Government will assign significant strengths, strengths, and/or deficiencies, weaknesses, and significant weaknesses to the Offeror’s proposal to arrive at the overall Factor 3 – Technical rating.

Significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in descending order of a positive evaluation by the Government are defined as follows:

• Significant Strength is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be very advantageous to the Government during contract performance

• Strength is 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

• Weakness is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

• Significant Weakness is a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

• Deficiency is a material failure of an Offeror’s 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

Offerors receiving a Factor 3 - Technical rating of Unacceptable will be Ineligible for award.

8 Evaluation of Factor 4: Past Performance - Confidence The Government will evaluate Factor 4 based on information provided with the proposal as specified in Attachment 2. Past Performance - Confidence is comprised of three elements: recency, relevance and quality. Each is explained below.

• Recency: This element is an assessment of how recent in an Offeror’s past was similar work performed. Recent work is defined as being performed in the last three years from the release date of this solicitation.

• Relevance: This element is an assessment of how similar previous Offeror work is to the work described in this solicitation. Relevant work is evaluated by considering scope, magnitude and complexity.

• Quality: This element is an assessment of on how well the Offeror performed on past contracts.

Sources of past performance information are information provided by the Offeror, questionnaires tailored to the acquisition, information obtained from other sources, and interviews with previous customers.

The proposer shall provide evidence (up to five instances) of successful performance within the past three

(3) years of similar or related work. This work may include Government or commercial contracts. For any contracts cited, please provide a customer point of contact (name, phone, email). The proposer should discuss its technical and schedule performance on these efforts compared against initial projections or requirements.

The Government may also use the following sources to evaluate past performance:

• Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)

• Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)

• Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS)

• Interviews with Customer Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials or other personnel with managerial or oversight responsibilities related to the cited effort

• Past performance questionnaires completed by customers from whom the Offeror has received previous contract awards

Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the evaluation will also consider the extent to which the Offeror’s past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.218-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns (if applicable). This quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that results in an unsatisfactory rating on any formal rating system (e.g. CPARS) or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. Based on the evaluation, the Offeror will be assigned a Past Performance Confidence rating from the list as defined in Table 5 below.

Table 5

Offerors that receive a Factor 4 – Past Performance Confidence rating of Unacceptable will be

9 Evaluation of Factor 5: Small Business Participation The Government will evaluate the extent to which small businesses (to include Service-Disabled, VeteranOwned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, Small Disadvantaged business concerns, and Women-Owned small business concerns) are identified in Attachment 7 - Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD). Offerors must meet the minimum quantitative requirement (MQR) of small business participation which is five (5) percent (%) of the total proposed contract value (to include options). The Government will assess the Small Business Utilization Plan (SBUP) (if applicable) in accordance with FAR 19.704 and the SBUP must reflect the level of small business participation specified in the SBPCD. Offerors are free to submit only a SBPCD, only a SBUP, or both, as long as all information required by Attachment 7 and a thorough discussion of identification, selection and utilization of small business concerns for more than simply administrative purchases is contained therein. The Government will give careful consideration to an Offeror’s dependence on small business for critical technical aspects of its overall proposal. The inclusion of significant engineering or technical elements from small business and other than traditional defense and aerospace contractors is considered a strength by SDA. The Government will assign an overall Factor 5 – Small Business Participation rating as described in Table 6 below.

Table 6

Offerors that receive a Factor 5 – Small Business Participation rating of Unacceptable will be

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives;

meets or exceeds MQR

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet MQR. Proposal is Ineligible for award .