Section_M.pdf

UNCLASSIFED

Protected Tactical Enterprise Service (PTES)

Evaluation Factors for Award

SECTION M

FA8808-17-R-0006

29 March 2018

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

2.0 GENERAL EVALUATION INFORMATION

3.0 SOURCE SELECTION MATRIX

4.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

4.1 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

4.2 FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL

4.2.1 FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL SUBFACTORS

(1) Subfactor 1: Software Development and Extensibility

(2) Subfactor 2: Cybersecurity and Certification

(3) Subfactor 3: PTW Hub Design

4.3 FACTOR 2 – COST/PRICE

4.4 FACTOR 3 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

1.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

a. This is a best value trade-off source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) the

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 15.3, --Source Selection, as supplemented by the Department of Defense (DoD) FAR Supplement (DFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, issued 1 Apr 2016, Air Force (AF) FAR Supplement (AFFARS), and Air Force Mandatory Procedures, MP5315.3 – Source Selection. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

b. The Government will select the Offeror whose proposal offers the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk and Cost/Price factors. The evaluation of proposals may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, in which the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors/subfactors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical approach of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all the source selection criteria in the solicitation. While the Government Source Selection Team (SST) will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. This best-value decision shall be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation, considering recommendations and minority opinions presented to the SSA. While the SSA may use reports and analysis prepared by others, the source selection decision shall represent the SSA’s independent judgment.

c. Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government intends to award one (1) contract as a result of this solicitation. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract depending on the quality of the proposals submitted and the availability of funds.

d. Funding Profile Compliance Evaluation. To achieve compliance with the budgetary information in Section L, Table 8, the Offeror’s proposed price through any year for the sum of all priced CLINs (except CLIN 0008) must not exceed the cumulative Government profile listed in Section L, Table 8. The Offeror’s failure to meet these funding constraints may be grounds for excluding the Offeror from the competition.

2.0 GENERAL EVALUATION INFORMATION

a. Solicitations, 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 or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award.

b. Mandatory Requirement. Certifications and representations required by Section K of the solicitation must be current as of the date of contract award. In the event that a proposal fails to comply with this mandatory requirement, the proposal may be determined to be ineligible for award.

c. Correction Potential of Proposals. The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any deficiency in accordance with FAR 15.306.

The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. An Offeror may be eliminated from the competition if any aspect of an Offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government’s requirements and is considered not correctable.

d. Assessment of New and Non-Developmental Item (NDI) Software. The Government will independently assess all code (software and programmable logic) as either (1) Non- Developmental Items, such as Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS), Government Off The Shelf (GOTS), Open Source Software (OSS) including freeware and shareware, and stand-alone executables and callable libraries or (2) new code. If the Offeror proposes to modify the source code of any COTS/GOTS item, the Government will not be bound by the Offeror’s designation of that code as either NDI or new. In making an independent assessment of modified code as either new or NDI, the Government will consider both the Offeror’s approach to making such a classification and the significance of the modification(s). The assessment will be used in the technical and cost evaluations.

e. Discussions. The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer 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, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, 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 IAW FAR 52.215-1(f)(4).

3.0 SOURCE SELECTION MATRIX

The matrix in the table below summarizes the evaluation factors and subfactors that will be used to obtain an integrated evaluation and determine best value.

E va lu at io n

F ac to rs

T ec h n ic al

Technical Subfactors Software Development and

Extensibility Cybersecurity and Certification PTW Hub Design

Technical Rating

Technical Risk Rating

Technical Rating

Technical Risk Rating

Technical Rating

Technical Risk Rating

Outstanding

Low, Moderate, High, or

Unacceptable

Outstanding

Low, Moderate, High, or

Unacceptable

Outstanding

Low, Moderate, High, or

Unacceptable

Good Good Good Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Marginal Marginal Marginal

Unacceptabl e

Unacceptable Unacceptable

C o s t Total Proposed Cost/Price: $Cost/$Price

Government’s Most Probable Cost Adjustment:

Total Evaluated Price (TEP): $

Reasonable: Y/N

Realism (Cost CLINs only):

Summarize the MPC Adjustments

Unbalanced Pricing: Summarize any presence of unbalanced pricing

S m al l

B u si n es s

P ar ti ci p at io n

Small Business Participation (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

Compliance with Contract and Solicitation Requirements Y/N

Table 1 - Evaluation Matrix

4.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

4.1 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

The evaluation Factors and Subfactors below will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below:

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Software Development and Extensibility

Subfactor 2: Cybersecurity and Certification

Subfactor 3: Protected Tactical Waveform (PTW) Hub Design

Factor 2: Cost/Price

Factor 3: Small Business Participation

Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. Factor 1 (Technical) is the most important and Factor 2 (Cost/Price) is the second most important. Factor 3 (Small Business Participation) is an absolute requirement for evaluation, but has no relative importance for the tradeoff decision. IAW FAR 15.304(e) when combined, all evaluation factors other than cost or price are significantly more important than cost or price. Therefore, Factor 1 (Technical) is significantly more important that Factor 2 (Cost/Price), as Factor 3 (Small Business Participation) has no relative importance for the tradeoff decision. Within Factor 1 (Technical), there are three subfactors which are of equal importance: Subfactor 1 (Software Development and Extensibility), Subfactor 2 (Cybersecurity and Certification), and Subfactor 3 (PTW Hub Design).

4.2 FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL

a. General Instructions. The technical evaluation provides for two distinct but related ratings for each Technical Subfactor: The Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating.

The Technical Ratings and the Technical Risk Ratings have equal impact for the rating of each Technical Subfactor. The Technical Rating evaluates the quality of the Offeror’s technical proposal for meeting the Government’s requirement. The Technical Risk Rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposal(s) with regard to its ability to satisfy the requirements of the solicitation. For the Technical Factor, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal in terms of strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, and significant weaknesses.

1) A “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.

2) A “deficiency” is 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.

3) A “weakness” is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

4) A “significant weakness” in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

If the Offeror attempts to identify proposal “strengths”, the Government reserves the right to accept or not accept the Offeror’s assessment of strengths. Offerors are hereby notified that any strengths identified by the Government may be incorporated into the resulting contract. If the Offeror does not agree to such incorporation, then the Government may choose not to consider those strengths when making the best value determination. The awarded contract may reflect any beneficial aspects of the awardee’s proposal and any above threshold (minimum) attributes, performance levels, or capabilities for which evaluation credit was given in the source selection process to the maximum extent possible.

b. Technical Rating. The Government will assign a color rating to each subfactor under the Technical Factor, as described in Table 2. The color rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the Technical Subfactor IAW the stated evaluation criteria and solicitation requirements. Each subfactor within the Technical Factor will receive one of the five color ratings based on the technical assessments of each Offeror’s proposal as it relates to each of the Technical Subfactors. The Technical Ratings of each Technical Subfactor shall not be rolled up into an overall Technical Rating for the Technical Factor. Examples of instances for which a proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements may include, but are not limited to, proposal ambiguity, assertions or direct restatement of requirements without supporting information, or conflicting information within a proposal, etc.

Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

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

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

Table 2 - Technical Ratings

c. Technical Risk Rating. Assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Each Technical Subfactor will receive one of the Technical Risk Ratings described below in Table 3. The Technical Risk Rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. The Technical Risk Ratings of each Technical Subfactor shall not be rolled up into an overall Technical Risk Rating for the Technical Factor.

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 3 - Technical Risk Ratings

4.2.1 FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL SUBFACTORS. The Technical Subfactors below will be evaluated based on the documentation submitted under Section L, paragraph 4.2.

(1) Subfactor 1: Software Development and Extensibility

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror:

a. Proposes an approach for PTES software development, integration, and test using an Agile methodology and whose Key Personnel team demonstrates a thorough understanding of the proposed approach, including developing and prioritizing Agile User Stories, planning Agile Sprints, and conducting Agile Sprints, as applicable to the scenario provided by the Government for the Oral Presentation. Consideration for a strength may be given for, but is not limited to, an approach for software development, integration, and test that significantly enhances readiness for operational acceptance.

b. Proposes a software architecture for MMS, KMS, and KLIF that is consistent with the mission planning and key management functionality described in the PTES System TRD, including modularity and extensibility functionality, and proposes Rights in Data (Including Technical Data, Computer Software, & Computer Software Documentation) that support MOSA as described in Attachment 1 – Statement of Work, CLIN 0001 paragraph 1.1.1.2.d.1., and enables future extensibility. Consideration for a strength may be given for, but is not limited to, a modular and extensible architecture that significantly enables the incorporation of future mission planning and key management requirements such as support for PTW communications via commercial satellites and PTW-processing satellites, and provides at least Government Purpose Rights for all technical data, computer software, and computer software documentation.

(2) Subfactor 2: Cybersecurity and Certification

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror:

a. Proposes a cybersecurity design concept and development approach through Authority to Operate (ATO) that can accommodate changes to cybersecurity requirements (e.g., Security Technical Implementation Guidelines (STIG) updates). Consideration for a strength may be given for, but is not limited to, cybersecurity approaches that significantly enhance security robustness and cybersecurity approaches that are very efficient at accommodating changes to cybersecurity requirements.

b. Provides design concepts and development approaches for the End Cryptographic Units (ECUs) in the Joint Hub and KMS that are consistent with the process for certification of the ECUs by the National Security Agency (NSA). Consideration for a strength may be given for, but is not limited to, approaches for ECU design, development, and certification that significantly mitigate development and certification risk for the PTES Joint Hub ECU and KMS ECU leveraging relevant examples in the past five years where the Offeror’s proposed approach was used to design and develop an ECU which has received NSA certification or is at least past Critical Design Review in the NSA ECU certification process.

(3) Subfactor 3: PTW Hub Design

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror:

a. Proposes a Hub design concept and development approach that is consistent with the Joint Hub functionality described in the PTES System TRD and PTES Joint Hub TRD.

Consideration for a strength may be given for, but is not limited to, a Joint Hub design concept that significantly mitigates development risk for the PTES Joint Hub by leveraging relevant examples from the past five years, citing examples that include Protected Tactical Waveform processing.

b. Proposes in Attachment 2 of the model contract to comply with the threshold requirements in the PTES TRDs. Consideration for a strength may be given for, proposing in Attachment 2a to fully or partially meet objective requirements in the PTES System TRD and PTES Joint Hub TRD.

4.3 FACTOR 2 – COST/PRICE. The Cost/Price Factor below will be evaluated based on the documentation submitted under Section L, paragraph 4.3.

a. General Instructions. The Offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness, realism, and unbalanced pricing, as further detailed in paragraph 4.3.b below. In the evaluation, 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. For all CLIN types, the evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The Government-calculated Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be presented to the Source Selection Authority for the best value trade-off decision. If an award is made, the contract award will NOT be the TEP values: the contract will contain the prices as proposed in the Model Contract and associated contract attachments.

Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The Government will calculate a TEP as shown below:

Table 4 – Total Evaluated Price

CLIN

(A)

Title (B)

Contract Type (C)

Proposed Cost $ (D)

Total Proposed Fee

(E) Total CLIN Amount

(F)

Design and Development CPIF Gov’t Most Probable

Cost (MPC) Offeror’s Total Proposed Fee

(D+E)

Target Fee (Cost Incentive)

Offeror’s Proposed Target Fee

Performance Incentive Fee (Attachment 11)

Offeror’s Proposed Performance Incentive Fee

Award Fee (Attachment 12)

Offeror’s Proposed Award Fee

IOC Capability Development CPIF MPC

Offeror’s Total Proposed Fee

(D+E)

(Cost Incentive)

Performance Incentive Fee (Attachment 11)

Offeror’s Proposed Performance Incentive Fee

Award Fee (Attachment 12)

Offeror’s Proposed Award Fee

FOC Capability Development CPIF MPC

Offeror’s Total Proposed Fee

(D+E)

(Cost Incentive)

Performance Incentive Fee (Attachment 11)

Offeror’s Proposed Performance Incentive Fee

Award Fee (Attachment 12)

Offeror’s Proposed Award Fee

Joint Hub Procurement

(FOC Capability) CPIF MPC Target Fee (0%) (D+E)

Joint Hub Installation and Deployment (FOC

Capability)

CPFF MPC

Offeror’s Proposed Fixed Fee

(D+E)

Priced Training and

Technical Orders CPFF MPC Offeror’s Proposed

Fixed Fee (D+E)

0008 Special Studies CPFF MPC Offeror’s Proposed

Fixed Fee (D+E)

0009 Data and Reports (CPIF) NSP N/A N/A N/A

Table 4 - Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Calculation

b. Evaluation Area Details. The proposal must contain sufficient details for the Government evaluation of the following areas:

a) Reasonableness (Applies to all proposed prices) – o The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for reasonableness, where reasonableness is an assessment of whether the price is too high. The price is reasonable, if it, in its nature and amount, does not exceed that amount which would be paid by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business (Reference FAR 31.201-3).

o In conducting the reasonableness analysis, the Government will use one or more analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1.

o A determination of unreasonableness will render the proposal un-awardable.

o In addition, proposals that have been assessed to be technically unacceptable are ineligible for award, and as a result, a reasonableness determination will not be made for technically unacceptable, un-awardable proposals.

b) Realism (Applies to cost-reimbursable CLINs 0001-0005 and 0007-0008) – o 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 and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal. (FAR 15.404-1(d)(1).

o The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for cost realism, the assessment will analyze whether the proposed price is too low.

o The Offeror’s proposed costs as provided in the Cost/Price Volume will be evaluated via a cost analysis approach. This process involves the Government’s review and evaluation of specific cost elements of the Offeror’s price/cost. For cost-reimbursable CLINs (CLINs 0001-0005 and 0007-0008) any proposed cost element may be adjusted to a Government-calculated Most Probable Cost (MPC) based upon the Government analysis of each proposed cost element.

The cost analysis will consider the Offeror’s proposed approach.

Cost adjustments will consider weaknesses in the technical proposal that impact the costs.

Cost adjustments will also consider missing costs that will likely be

0011 Data and Reports ( CPFF) NSP N/A N/A N/A

Data Rights

(Attachment 7) FFP N/A N/A Offeror’s FFP

Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Sum of Column F incurred for the contract with the proposed solution.

Cost adjustments will consider any Offeror-initiated unsubstantiated decrements to historical hours/costs.

The cost adjustments will result in the Government’s Most Probable Cost that will become part of the TEP calculation for best value consideration.

It is the intent that all cost adjustments will be upward; there will not be any downward adjustments.

o No MPC adjustment will be made for deficiencies; however, deficiencies may render your proposal unrealistic.

o The Offeror’s proposal must be clear and convincing in demonstrating that the costs in the Offeror’s proposal are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal (FAR 15.404-1(d)).

o Over-proposing of unwanted tasks and associated costs will NOT result in a probable cost adjustment but may result in an unreasonableness determination.

o An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of realism poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

c) Unbalanced Pricing (Applies to all contract line items) – o The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for the presence of unbalanced pricing.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques.

o An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

d) Total Proposed Price (TPP) – o The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for accuracy in calculating the Total Proposed Price (TPP) and for compliance with the instructions for calculating the Total Proposed Price.

e) Total Evaluated Price (TEP) – o The Government will adjust the TPP to incorporate the Government’s Most Probable cost, and the Government-calculated TEP will be used only for evaluation purposes in the best value decision process.

c. Insufficient Details. Insufficient details to support the determination of reasonableness, realism, or absence of unbalanced pricing, initially or subsequently, may be a consideration for excluding the Offeror’s proposal from the competitive range and further consideration for award. The burden of proof rests with the Offeror.

d. Consistency. The Government will compare the information the Offeror provides in Section B of the Model Contract to the information the Offeror provides in Volume III to ensure the information in the former is identical to that in the latter. The Government reserves the right to determine that, if any inconsistency exists between the Model Contract and Volume III, the Model Contract will take precedence. In the event there is inconsistency, the value in the Model Contract will be used in the TEP calculation. The inconsistency will be assessed as a responsibility issue.

4.4 FACTOR 3 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION. The Small Business Participation Factor below will be evaluated based on the documentation submitted under Section L, paragraph 4.4.

a. General Instructions. The Government will evaluate the content of the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Submission specified in Section L. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s proposal realistically meets the PTES small business participation minimum requirement of an overall goal of at least 10% of overall contract effort to be performed by small business(es), expressed as a percentage of the total proposed prime contract value.

The Small Business Participation evaluation, as described in Table 5 below, provides an “Acceptable” rating if the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Submission meets the criteria stated above and an “Unacceptable” rating if the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Submission does not meet the stated criteria. A final rating of Unacceptable will render the proposal unawardable.

Rating Description

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

Table 5 - Small Business Ratings