Amd 01-Section M - Warfighter Operational Integration_Updated_Track Changes_R1.pdf

Approved for Public Release 20-MDA-10566 (9 Sep 20)

HQ0858-20-R-0011

TEAMS-Next Warfighter Operational Integration

(WOI)

Section M Evaluation Factors for Award

September 2, 2020

HQ0858-20-R-xxxx

20-MDA-10566 (9 Sep 20)

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATING METHODOLOGY/DEFINITIONS

4.0 FACTOR 1: MISSION CAPABILITY

5.0 FACTOR 2: IMCP

6.0 FACTOR 3: OCI MANAGEMENT PLAN

7.0 FACTOR 4: PAST PERFORMANCE

8.0 FACTOR 5: COST AND PRICE

HQ0858-20-R-xxxx

20-MDA-10566 (9 Sep 20) 3

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The Government intends to award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

This attachment will be removed upon award of the contract.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Government will evaluate the Offerors’ proposals in accordance with (IAW) the criteria specified in this section. The Government intends to award without discussions. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms for each factor/subfactor. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). The Government reserves the right to make an award or no award.

2.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

2.1 Best Value Tradeoff

This is a best-value tradeoff, competitive source selection conducted IAW the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 15.3, as supplemented by the Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) subpart 215.3, DoD Source Selection Procedures, and MDA Manual 5013.06-M, Source Selection Procedures. As a condition for award, the Offeror must be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.1; have an approved Top Secret facility security clearance (FCL) in place prior to award; meet the requirements of the solicitation; conform to the required terms and conditions; and include all required certifications. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. Offerors shall submit one proposal. The proposal shall be, discretely priced, and fully compliant with all stated terms, conditions, and performance requirements set forth in this solicitation. Page limits and all other proposal preparation instructions in this RFP apply to the proposal. Contingent proposals are not allowed, nor will they be accepted, considered or evaluated by the Government. Contingent proposals are defined herein as proposals that include terms or conditions that imply that performance is contingent upon any sort of provisioning from the Government that is not set forth in the RFP.

HQ0858-20-R-0001

20-MDA-10566 (9 Sep 20) 4

2.2 The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal shall contain the Offeror’s best terms for cost and non-cost factors. When the Government pursues award without discussions, the Offerors may be given the opportunity IAW FAR 15.306 to clarify certain aspects of their proposals (e.g., adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical errors. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) determines them to be necessary.

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic, including contract terms and conditions, program commitments, unrealistically high or low price, or a proposal that is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of understanding/competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of all stated requirements. Further, the Government may reject any proposal that is incomplete (e.g., missing Volume).

2.3 Competitive Range

If discussions are required, a competitive range determination will be utilized in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the PCO determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted (FAR 15.306(c)(2)), the PCO 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.

If the PCO determines that an Offeror’s proposal should not be included in the competitive range, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award. A written notice of the decision will be provided to the unsuccessful Offeror in accordance with FAR 15.503, whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505 or 15.506.

2.4 Discussions

If discussions are required, they may be conducted either orally or in writing. The scope and extent of the discussions are a matter of PCO judgment as set forth in FAR 15.306. Responses from Offerors may be required within two business days.

Should the Government need to conduct written exchanges with Offerors, they will be in the form of an evaluation notice (EN). The specified format and page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the Offerors. The ENs may be sent electronically (i.e., via e-mail) at the discretion of the PCO. The letters forwarding the ENs to the Offerors will request an e-mail. Offerors must submit responses by the time and date specified in the PCO letter accompanying the ENs.

2.5 The Government will select for award the most advantageous proposal representing the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of Mission Capability, Past Performance, and Cost and Price. Mission Capability includes six (6) subfactors: Ground-Based Weapon System Watch Efforts (MCS1); Asset and Configuration Management (MCS2);

Strategic and Operational Integration (MCS3); Warfighter Processes (RFI/RFA/WIP) (MCS4);

20-MDA-10566 (9 Sep 20) 5

Risk Management Implementation (MCS5); and Human Capital Management (MCS6). All Mission Capability subfactors are of equal relative importance.

At the factor level, Mission Capability is more important than Past Performance. When combined, Mission Capability and Past Performance are significantly more important than Cost and Price. However, the significance of Cost and Price as an evaluation factor will increase with the degree of equality in overall merit of competing proposals in meeting solicitation requirements. Cost and Price will not be scored, but will be evaluated for reasonableness and realism, and will be considered as part of the integrated assessment of best value. The Information Management and Control Plan (IMCP) factor and Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Management Plan factor will be evaluated as either Acceptable or Unacceptable. Any proposal with an Unacceptable IMCP or OCI Management Plan factor rating is not eligible for award.

2.6 Award may be made to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror where the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical superiority and/or past performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price differential. The selection decision will document tradeoffs between Mission Capability, Past Performance, and Cost and Price for offers with an “Acceptable” rating for IMCP and OCI Management Plan.

2.7 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors and subfactors to be eligible for award. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation, and instructions contained in Section L, may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award; this includes incomplete proposal submission (e.g., missing Volumes in electronic format).

2.8 Contracting Officer’s Responsibility Determination

Prior to awarding a contract, the PCO must perform a responsibility determination for the selected contractor. The standards of contractor responsibility and the requirement for the PCO to make and document a responsibility determination are set forth in FAR 9.104 and 9.105. To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must:

a) Have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them.

b) Be able to comply with the required or proposed delivery or performance schedule, taking into consideration all existing commercial and governmental business commitments.

c) Have a satisfactory performance record. A prospective contractor shall not be determined responsible or non-responsible solely on the basis of a lack of relevant performance history, except as provided in FAR 9.104-2.

d) Have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics.

e) Have the necessary organization, experience, accounting and operational controls, and technical skills, or the ability to obtain them (including, as appropriate, such elements as

20-MDA-10566 (9 Sep 20) 6 production control procedures, property control systems, quality assurance measures, and safety precautions applicable to materials to be produced or services to be performed by the prospective contractor and subcontractors).

f) Have the necessary production, construction, and technical equipment and facilities, or the ability to obtain them

g) Be otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations.

Per FAR 9.504(e), the PCO shall award the contract to the apparent successful Offeror unless a conflict of interest is determined to exist that cannot be avoided or mitigated. The PCO reserves the right to reject proposals from Offerors which do not adequately avoid or mitigate all OCIs or are inconsistent with the identified Warfighter OCI restrictions. If an OCI is not adequately resolved, the PCO reserves the right to notify the Offeror and allow the Offeror a reasonable opportunity to respond before making an award decision. The PCO also reserves the right to obtain an OCI waiver and make an award when in the best interests of the United States. If the likely successful Offeror is rejected due to OCI and the PCO elects to not pursue a waiver, the Government reserves the right to award to the best value of remaining Offerors that are not rejected due to OCI. Notices to Offerors of OCIs and their responses thereto are not negotiations or discussions as those terms are used in FAR 15.306(d).

To be eligible to receive an award, the Offeror’s proposal must comply with Department of Defense (DoD) Class Deviation 2020-O0008, Revision 1 to FAR Clause 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting proposed in Volume II Executive Summary Tab 3.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATING METHODOLOGY/DEFINITIONS

The Government will conduct an in-depth review of each proposal against the factors and subfactors established in the solicitation, and assign evaluations ratings (FAR 15.305). The ratings tables below will be used.

TABLE M-1: Evaluation Factors/Subfactors (Tradeoff) Evaluation Factors Factor 1: Mission Capability Mission Capability Subfactor 1 (MCS1): Ground-Based Weapon System Watch Efforts Mission Capability Subfactor 2 (MCS2): Asset and Configuration Management Mission Capability Subfactor 3 (MCS3): Strategic and Operational Integration Mission Capability Subfactor 4 (MCS4): Warfighter Processes (RFI/RFA/WIP) Mission Capability Subfactor 5 (MCS5): Risk Management Implementation Mission Capability Subfactor 6 (MCS6): Human Capital Management Factor 4: Past Performance Factor 5: Cost and Price

The Factor 1 Mission Capability subfactors (MCS1, MCS2, MCS3, MCS4, MCS5, and MCS6 ) will be evaluated using the definitions at Table M-2 and the ratings at Table M-3. The combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in Table M-3 in

20-MDA-10566 (9 Sep 20) 7 conjunction with the risk descriptions set forth in Table M-4. Factor 4 Past Performance will be evaluated using the Relevancy, Quality, and Confidence Level ratings set forth in Tables M-7, M-8, and M-9. Factor 5 Cost and Price will be evaluated in accordance with paragraph 8 below.

TABLE M-2: Evaluation Definitions Discriminator 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.

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.

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.

TABLE M-3: Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

20-MDA-10566 (9 Sep 20) 8

TABLE M-4. Technical Risk Rating Method Adjectival Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have 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 Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which 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.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

TABLE M-5: Acceptable/Unacceptable Factor

Acceptable/Unacceptable Factors Factor 2: IMCP Factor 3: OCI Management Plan

Factor 2 will be evaluated on an “Acceptable/Unacceptable” basis using the ratings at Table M-

6. Factor 3 will be evaluated on an “Acceptable/Unacceptable” basis using the ratings at Table M-6.

TABLE M-6. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

4.0 FACTOR 1: MISSION CAPABILITY

The Government will evaluate the Mission Capability approach of each Offeror. The evaluation will focus on compliance with solicitation requirements. Each subfactor within the Mission Capability factor will receive one of the combined technical/risk color ratings in Table M-3. The combined technical/risk ratings include consideration of risk, in Table M-4, in conjunction with strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies, in Table M-2, in determining

20-MDA-10566 (9 Sep 20) 9 technical ratings. The Government will not roll up the Mission Capability subfactor ratings into an overall factor adjectival/color rating.

Evaluation of the Offeror’s Mission Capability subfactors shall be based solely on information furnished by the Offeror. To ensure sufficient information is available, the Offeror must furnish, as part of its proposal, all descriptive material necessary for the Government to determine if the Offeror’s approach meets the requirements of the solicitation. In a case where an Offeror fails to provide enough information to determine if the proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, or weaknesses may be assessed.

4.1 Subfactor MCS1: Ground-Based Weapon System Watch Efforts

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to, and understanding of MCS1 Element #1:

MCS1 Element #1: Ground-Based Weapon System Watch Efforts. Develop pre-response considerations to a specific HEMP scenario.

Situation: According to credible intelligence sources, an imminent HEMP event is expected to affect North America.

Deliverable: Develop pre-response considerations to prepare for the threat and minimize the impact to the California and Alaska missile defense assets.

Constraints:

Bulletized list no more than 1 page.

Response must remain unclassified.

Assumptions:

HEMP event is man-made and is expected to occur with the next three days.

Initial notification was received from MDA Watch Officers from Colorado Springs.

4.2 Subfactor MCS2: Asset and Configuration Management

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to, and understanding of, MCS2 Elements #1 and #2:

MCS2 Element #1: Asset Management Procedures. Facilitating Asset Management procedures to integrate and synchronize MDA schedules for executing research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E), training, and sustainment activities.

MCS2 Element #2: Configuration Management Procedures. Providing expert knowledge to assist the government in maintaining the BMDS in an approved operational configuration, where only Operational Configuration Baseline (OCB) approved hardware and software are in place when the BMDS is configured for operations.

4.3 Subfactor MCS3: Strategic and Operational Integration

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to, and understanding of, MCS3 Elements

20-MDA-10566 (9 Sep 20) 10

#1 and #2:

MCS3 Element #1: Service, CCMD and Joint Staff Integration. Providing individualized expert knowledge on the organization, management, leadership and duties of the U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, United States Space Force (USSF), and Joint Staff and their ability to interact with CCMDs, JFCC-IMD and MDA on missile defense issues.

MCS3 Element #2: Operational-level Integration. Building and maintaining professional relationships to support operational-level interface with combatant commanders and their staffs to increase and improve Warfighter participation in developing future missile defense capabilities.

4.4 Subfactor MCS4: Warfighter Processes (Request for Information/Analysis (RFI/RFA) and the Warfighter Involvement Program (WIP))

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to, and understanding of, the following MCS4 Elements #1 and #2:

MCS4 Element #1: Request for Information/Request for Analysis. Facilitating the acceptance, coordination, and final approval release of all RFI and RFAs from OSD, Joint Staff, Warfighters, Service Departments, and MDA staffs. Facilitating the process includes translating, verifying and validating submitted requests to ensure a mutual understanding of the request with the principle MDA directorate(s) responsible for providing an answer.

MCS4 Element #2: Warfighter Involvement Program (WIP). Supporting development of WIP products (Modification and Fielding Request List, Prioritized Capabilities List, and Achievable Capabilities List) that influence the BMDS; MDA baselines and the Integrated Master Test Plan (IMTP); and life cycle sustainment planning. Development of products includes translating, verifying and validating submitted warfighter requirements to ensure a mutual understanding of the requirement with the principle MDA directorate responsible for addressing the requirement.

4.5 Subfactor MCS5: Risk Management Implementation

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to, and understanding of the following MCS5 Elements #1 and #2:

MCS5 Element #1: Risk Identification, Mitigation, and Recommendations for Recovery.

Providing subject matter expertise for the identification, evaluation, mitigation, and development of recovery actions of risks associated with: 1) Facilitating proper Asset Management Functions;

2) Maintaining the OCB; 3) Facilitating RFI/RFAs; 4) Supporting WIP products and 5) Providing Real World Event Support.

MCS5 Element #2: Watch Stander Training. Demonstrating the process to qualify new watch

20-MDA-10566 (9 Sep 20) 11 employees in a timely manner for watch standing at all locations listed in the SOW.

4.6 Subfactor MCS6: Human Capital Management

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to, and understanding of, the following MCS6 Elements #1, #2 and #3:

MCS6 Element #1: Recruit Qualified Personnel. Demonstrating the process for timely recruiting and on-boarding of personnel that meet the qualifications set forth in the SOW labor competencies (SOW 4.3.1). Addressing processes and timelines for backfilling billets and approach to quickly increase staffing to support potential new mission areas.

MCS6 Element #2: Retain Qualified Personnel. In concert with the compensation plan portion of the Cost/Price Volume, addressing compensation plan/benefits and other associated incentives to retain qualified personnel.

MCS6 Element #3: Problem Resolution Strategy. Problem resolution strategy addressing customer complaints in the following areas:

a) Unsatisfactory job performance at the employee level (e.g. lack of technical ability)

b) Unsatisfactory systemic performance (e.g. pervasive and continued unsatisfactory performance across an entire function)

c) Personnel misconduct issues (e.g. timecard fraud, computer misuse, behavior/conduct).

5.0 FACTOR 2: IMCP

The Government will evaluate the overall plan(s) of each Offeror as either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Information Management and Control Plan-Services (IMCP) to ensure it demonstrates an approach to, and understanding of, the policies/procedures identified below:

a) Procedures for determining the need to transmit CUI.

b) Internal mechanisms to determine the amount of CUI deemed necessary to transmit.

c) Accountability procedures used to safeguard CUI.

d) Procedures for monitoring subcontractor compliance with DFARS 252.204-7012.

e) Procedures for reporting a cyber-incident as defined in DFARS 252.204-7012.

f) All National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 800-171 r1 controls for its own applicable network in its System Security Plans and POAM.

g) Controls identified in the POAM are resolved within one year after contract award, or a reasonable period of time agreed to by the Contracting Officer.

h) Controls in place to enforce flow down of DFARS 252.204-7012 and prime contractor

IMCP procedures to all applicable subcontractors and vendors.

An IMCP will be determined to be “Acceptable” if the plan meets the requirements of the solicitation identified in paragraphs 5.0 a-h above.

20-MDA-10566 (9 Sep 20) 12

An Offeror that receives an “Unacceptable” rating for the IMCP is not eligible for award.

6.0 FACTOR 3: OCI MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s OCI Management Plan to ensure it demonstrates an approach and understanding in the following areas:

a) A description of the organizational unit and position(s) responsible for implementing the Offeror’s OCI Management approach to include responsibility for overall management, oversight, and enforcement.

b) The plan to maintain and self-certify an OCI compliant environment during performance of the contract by ensuring that the Offeror and subcontractors at all tiers do not support any MDA-funded contract requirements (whether via MDA contracts, or other Government agency contracts which support MDA).

c) The procedures for detecting, eliminating, and reporting OCIs at any tier, including procedures the Offeror will utilize to ensure its subcontractors at all tiers proactively identify and report conflicts.

d) The procedures for protecting Agency information that could lead to an unfair competitive advantage if disclosed; specifically, collecting disclosure agreements covering all individuals, subcontractors, and other entities with access to agency-sensitive information, and physical safeguards.

e) Promulgation of enforcement mechanisms, procedures and training to all employees of the Offeror and subcontractors at all tiers, with emphasis on consequences for non-compliance.

f) Processes for identifying and eliminating potential conflicts associated with the employment of recently separated federal Government employees (military or civilian) that may have had unequal, non-public access to TEAMS or TEAMS-Next information.

The Government will evaluate the plan of each Offeror as either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. If an Offeror fails to meet the requirements of the solicitation in each of the above areas (a-f), it will be assigned an “Unacceptable” rating for OCI Management Plan. An Offeror that receives an “Unacceptable” rating for OCI Management Plan is not eligible for award.

7.0 FACTOR 4: PAST PERFORMANCE

The past performance evaluation determines the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s probability of successfully performing the required effort based on the demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance, and quality of performance, in supplying services that meet the contract’s requirements.

The Past Performance evaluation will result in a Performance Confidence Assessment as defined in Table M-9. Offerors assessed with a Performance Confidence Assessment of “No Confidence” after the communications described in FAR 15.306(b)(4), if the PCO deems them necessary, will be removed from consideration for award.

20-MDA-10566 (9 Sep 20) 13

In conducting this evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use past performance information provided by the Offeror, information obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition, and data obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not be limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Government POCs (e.g. Program Managers, PCOs, and Fee Determining Officials) or commercial equivalents; and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

The Government will conduct a performance assessment on recent and relevant contracts based upon the quality of the Offeror’s past performance as well as that of its subcontractors. Based on an evaluation of recency, relevancy, and quality of past performance information from the identified contracts, the Past Performance Evaluation Team will determine an overall Performance Confidence Assessment Rating at the factor level.

7.1 Recency Assessment

The Government will only consider recent work, which is defined as work performed during the five-year period preceding the date of this solicitation release. If any part of the performance falls within this five-year period, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance.

7.2 Relevancy Assessment

If the past performance information is recent, a relevancy assessment will be conducted on the Offerors’ past contracts. Relevancy as it pertains to past performance information is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontractor(s). This area demonstrates the depth and breadth of relevant experience of the Offeror.

The Past Performance Evaluation Team will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine whether those efforts relate to the proposed effort.

In assessing relevancy, consideration will be given to the following:

a) MCS1 Element #1 Ground-Based Weapon System Watch Efforts

b) MCS2 Element #1: Asset Management

c) MCS2 Element #2: Configuration Management

d) MCS3 Element #1: Service, CCMD and Joint Staff Integration

e) MCS4 Element #2: Warfighter Involvement Program (WIP) e)f) MCS5 Element #1: Risk Identification, Mitigation, and Recommendations for Recovery f)g)MCS 6 Element #1: Recruit Qualified Personnel

Relevancy for the Offeror’s past contracts will be assigned in accordance with the definitions outlined in Table M-7 below.

20-MDA-10566 (9 Sep 20) 14

TABLE M-7: Factor 4 Past Performance Relevancy Rating Rating Descriptions

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

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

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

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

7.3 Quality Assessment

The quality assessment is an evaluation that determines how well the Offeror performed on recent and relevant past contracts. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to the Past Performance factor evaluation. A quality assessment will only be conducted against the Offerors’ contracts assessed as recent and relevant.

The Past Performance Evaluation Team will utilize the quality definitions in Table M-8 in assessing quality of performance relative to contract performance information obtained from other sources to include but not limited to: PPQs, PPIRS/CPARS, FAPIIS, eSRS, or other databases; interviews with Government POCs (e.g. Program Managers, PCOs, and Fee Determining Officials) or commercial equivalents; and the Defense Contract Management Agency. A single quality rating will be assessed for each PPI.

TABLE M-8: Factor 4 Past Performance Quality Definitions Rating Rating Definition

Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The performance of areas being assessed was accomplished with few minor issues or concerns.

Very Good

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The performance of areas being assessed was accomplished with few minor issues or concerns, for which the Contractor’s corrective actions were highly effective.

Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The performance of the areas being assessed contains minor issues or concerns, for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective.

20-MDA-10566 (9 Sep 20) 15

Marginal

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The performance of the areas being assessed includes significant problems, issues, or concerns for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were only somewhat effective.

Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most contractual requirement. The performance of the areas being assessed includes serious problems, issues, or concerns for which the Contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective.

N/A No information or did not apply to your contract. Unable to provide assessment.

7.4 Past Performance Rating

Based on the Recency, Relevancy, and Quality ratings assessed for each the PPIs, an overall Past Performance rating (as defined at Table M-9) will be assessed for each Offeror.

TABLE M-9: Factor 4 Performance Confidence Assessments Ratings 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.

Neutral Confidence

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. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of recent and relevant past performance or for

20-MDA-10566 (9 Sep 20) 16 whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have “Neutral Confidence.” A record of “Substantial” or “Satisfactory” Confidence will be considered more advantageous to the Government than a record of “Neutral Confidence.”

7.5 Adverse Past Performance

Adverse past performance information is: (1) data from a recent and at least somewhat relevant contract; and (2) which the offeror has not had an opportunity to respond through a formal rating system; and (3) which negatively impacts the performance confidence assessment.Adverse past performance information is defined as past performance information that supports a less than acceptable rating on any evaluation aspect or verifiable unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. When a recent and relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any 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. Furthermore, the PCO must discuss adverse past performance with each Offeror still being considered for award.

8.0 FACTOR 5: COST AND PRICE

The Cost/Price Factor will not receive a color rating and the Government will only evaluate the Cost/Price Factor for technically acceptable proposals. The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s price proposal using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404.

Information in the proposal and information from other sources such as DCAA, DCMA, and information obtained by the past performance evaluation team may be considered under the Cost and Price Factor. The evaluation will include the three-year base period, two two-year options, one one-year option, Option CLIN 0001 “Emergent Requirements” and the 6 month option to extend services.

8.1 Professional Employee Total Compensation

Prices that are insufficient to cover direct labor costs and benefit costs plus other burdens and fee/profit, is a failure to comply with the provisions in FAR 52.222-46(a) and will result in the proposal being rejected by the PCO in accordance with FAR 52.222-46(d).

8.2 Affordability

An affordable proposal does not force the Government to make unacceptable budget tradeoffs.

20-MDA-10566 (9 Sep 20) 17

Any unaffordable proposal, including an otherwise superior proposal, may be eliminated from consideration for contract award by the SSA.

8.3 Reasonableness

Since the Government anticipates adequate price competition, the Government will verify price reasonableness by comparison of competitively proposed prices. Therefore, Offerors are not required to submit certified cost or pricing data. If, after receipt of proposals, the PCO determines that adequate price competition does not exist, the Government may require certified cost or pricing data in accordance with DFARS 252.215-7008.

8.4 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 and reflect a clear understanding of the requirements.

For CPFF LOE 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 probable cost will result from adjustments to the proposed cost to realistic levels based on a cost realism analysis of the proposed direct and indirect rates.

8.5 Cost and Price Factor Evaluation Results

The SSEB will provide the following results of its analysis of the cost/price factor to the SSA for consideration in making the best value decision.

a) Any qualitative cost issues

b) The total evaluated price for the total contract effort. The total evaluated price will consist of the sum of the following:

1. The probable cost of all CPFF LOE CLINs plus the proposed fixed fee amounts (to include options).

2. The travel and ODC CLINs at the Government provided amount.

The amount of any additional costs to the Government necessary to support the Offeror’s unique approach.