DRAFT_IDIQ_Section_M_For_Release_9Feb12.pdf

SECTION M 4

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 6

Xx XXX 20xx 7

Prepared By: 35 Electronic Systems Center 36

Operational Command and Control Division 37

ESC/HSGG 38

11 Barksdale Street, Building 1614 39 Hanscom AFB, MA 01731-1700 40

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award DRAFT

Page 2 of 23 DRAFT

Revision History 45

Rev Number Date Description Sections

Page 3 of 23 DRAFT

Table of Contents 51

Contents 52

1.0 M001 SOURCE SELECTION ...................................................................................................................... 5 53

1.1 Basis for Contract Award .................................................................................................................... 5 54

1.1.1 C2AD Contracts and RISC2 Delivery Order Basis for Award ........................................................ 5 55

1.1.2 ATOMS Delivery Order Basis for Award ....................................................................................... 5 56

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded .................................................................................................. 5 57

1.3 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers ............................................................................................................ 6 58

1.4 Correction of Potential Proposals ....................................................................................................... 6 59

1.5 Discussions .......................................................................................................................................... 6 60

1.6 Competitive Advantage from Use of GFP/GFI/GFE ............................................................................ 6 61

2.0 M002 EVALUATION FACTORS – C2AD Contracts and RISC2 Delivery Order .......................................... 7 62

2.1 Evaluation Process .............................................................................................................................. 7 63

2.2.1 Small Business Awards ................................................................................................................. 8 64

2.2 Factor 1: Technical Acceptability ...................................................................................................... 10 65

2.2.1 Subfactor 1-1: Domain Knowledge (C2AD) ................................................................................ 11 66

2.2.2 Subfactor 1-2: Software Development (C2AD) .......................................................................... 11 67

2.2.3 Subfactor 1-3: Sustainment (C2AD) ........................................................................................... 11 68

2.2.4 Subfactor 1-4: Training (C2AD) .................................................................................................. 11 69

2.2.5 Subfactor 1-5: Test and Information Assurance (C2AD) ............................................................ 12 70

2.2.6 Subfactor 2-1: Technical Approach (RISC2) ............................................................................... 12 71

2.2.7 Subfactor 2-2: Integration, Test and Information Assurance (RISC2) ........................................ 13 72

2.2.8 Subfactor 2-3: Program Management (RISC2) ........................................................................... 13 73

2.3 Factor 2: Past Performance ............................................................................................................... 14 74

2.3.1 Evaluation .................................................................................................................................. 14 75

2.3.2 Assessment Ratings .................................................................................................................... 14 76

2.3.3 Recency ...................................................................................................................................... 15 77

2.3.4 Relevancy ................................................................................................................................... 15 78

2.3.5 Performance Quality Assessment .............................................................................................. 15 79

2.4 Factor 3: Cost/Price ........................................................................................................................... 16 80

Page 4 of 23 DRAFT

2.4.1 Information Other than Cost or Pricing Data ............................................................................. 16 81

2.4.2 Cost/Price Reasonableness ........................................................................................................ 17 82

2.4.3 Cost Realism ............................................................................................................................... 17 83

2.4.4 Unbalanced Pricing .................................................................................................................... 18 84

2.4.5 Burden of Proof .......................................................................................................................... 18 85

2.4.6 Total Evaluated Cost/Price (TEP) ................................................................................................ 18 86

3.0 M003 EVALUATION FACTORS – ATOMS ............................................................................................... 19 87

3.1 Evaluation Factors and Their Relative Order of Importance ............................................................ 19 88

3.2 Importance of Cost ........................................................................................................................... 19 89

3.3 Factor Rating ..................................................................................................................................... 19 90

3.4 Factor 1 – Technical .......................................................................................................................... 20 91

3.4.1 Technical Rating ......................................................................................................................... 20 92

3.4.2 Technical Risk Rating .................................................................................................................. 20 93

3.4.3 Subfactor 1: Technical Approach: Functional Requirements ..................................................... 20 94

3.4.4 Subfactor 2: Technical Approach: Architectural Tenets ............................................................ 21 95

3.4.5 Subfactor 3: Integration, Test and Information Assurance........................................................ 21 96

3.4.6 Subfactor 4: Transition, Fielding and Sustainment .................................................................... 22 97

3.4.7 Subfactor 5: Program Management .......................................................................................... 22 98

3.5 Factor 2: Cost/Price ........................................................................................................................... 22 99

3.5.1 Information Other than Cost or Pricing Data ............................................................................. 22 100

3.5.2 Cost/Price Reasonableness ........................................................................................................ 22 101

3.5.3 Cost Realism ............................................................................................................................... 23 102

3.5.4 Burden of Proof .......................................................................................................................... 23 103

3.5.5 Total Evaluated Cost/Price (TEP) ................................................................................................ 23 104

4.0 M004 PRE-AWARD SURVEY .................................................................................................................. 23 105

5.0 M005 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS ....................................................... 23 106

Page 5 of 23 DRAFT

1.0 M001 SOURCE SELECTION 109

1.1 Basis for Contract Award 111

This is a competitive Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection that will be conducted 112 in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.101-2 and supplement, and 113 Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, Appendix A – Lowest Price Technically 114 Acceptable Source Selection Process (LPTA), as further defined in paragraph 1.1.1. The Government 115 intends to award without discussions, therefore each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms 116 from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct 117 discussions if determined necessary by the Contracting Officer. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will 118 base the source selection decisions on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection 119 criteria in the solicitation (as described below). While the Government Source Selection Evaluation 120 Board and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process by its nature is 121 subjective, and therefore professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. 122 Coincident in the same evaluation time period, the Government anticipates awarding: 1) Command and 124 Control Applications and Information Services Developments (C2AD) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite 125 Quantity (ID/IQ) contracts to the pool of awardees (the C2AD Pool), which will also include a delivery 126 order (DO) for a Post-Award Conference; 2) a DO for the Request Information Services for Command 127 and Control (RISC2) effort; and 3) a DO for the Air Tasking Order Management System (ATOMS) effort. 128 For the RISC2 and ATOMS DOs, the Government will only select proposals submitted by offerors 129 selected as members of the C2AD Pool. 130

1.1.1 C2AD Contracts and RISC2 Delivery Order Basis for Award 131

Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability on 132 C2AD and RISC2 proposals. The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, 133 representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation. In 134 order to be selected for award, an Offeror must be deemed responsible IAW FAR Part 9 as 135 supplemented, and the Offeror’s proposal must (1) conform to the solicitation’s requirements; (2) be 136 among the lowest evaluated priced offers; (3) be technically acceptable; and (4) provide evidence of 137 past performance that results in an acceptable rating; based on the evaluation of factors and sub-factors 138 further described in this Section M002. 139

1.1.2 ATOMS Delivery Order Basis for Award 140

The Government will select the best overall offer for ATOMS proposals based upon an integrated 141 assessment of Technical subfactors and Cost/Price. The solicitation requirements include all stated 142 terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this 143 solicitation. DOs may be awarded to an Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, 144 as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated 145 terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this 146 solicitation), and is judged based upon the evaluation factors and subfactors, detailed in Section M003, 147 to represent the best values to the Government. 148

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded 150

For the purpose of establishing the C2AD Pool, the Government contemplates awarding up to 12 C2AD 151 contracts; reserving the right to award more, less, or no contracts at all, depending upon the quality of 152 the proposal(s) submitted and the availability of funds. An ID/IQ contract and a Post-Award Conference 153

Page 6 of 23 DRAFT will be awarded to each of the lowest-priced, technically acceptable (LPTA) Offerors. The DO for the 154 Post-Award Conference will satisfy the minimum order requirement. A contractor that is awarded an 155 ID/IQ contract is not guaranteed any DO beyond the initial one for the Post-Award Conference. 156 Although Offerors are encouraged to submit a proposal for ATOMS, it will not be the basis of an ID/IQ 157 award and a Contractor will not be penalized for not submitting a proposal for ATOMS. The 158 Government reserves the right to exercise “on-ramps” as described in Section H of this solicitation to 159 award additional C2AD contracts during the original Period of Performance of the C2AD contracts 160 awarded as part of this evaluation. 161 The Government anticipates awarding at least two (2) ID/IQ contracts for small businesses in accordance 163 with FAR 19 and supplements (North American Industry Classification System [NAICS] code 541511). 164 Each future DO requirement will be assessed for appropriateness of being considered for a small-165 business set-aside. If the DO requirement is assessed as a candidate for a small-business set-aside, the 166 DO will be competed only among the small-business C2AD awardees. 167 Concurrent with the initial C2AD contract award(s), the Government intends to award two software 169 development DOs, RISC2 and ATOMS, IAW FAR 16.505 (b) (1) Fair Opportunity, to one or more of the 170 selected Offerors in accordance with criteria in M002 and M003. The Government reserves the right to 171 award none, one, or two development DOs depending on the quality of the proposals received and the 172 availability of funds. 173

1.3 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers 175

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program 176 commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in cost when 177 compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of 178 competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program. 179

1.4 Correction of Potential Proposals 181

The Government may establish a competitive range consisting of those companies whose proposals are 182 considered to be most highly rated. The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the 183 “correction potential” of any deficiency or proposal uncertainty. The judgment of such "correction 184 potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror's proposal not 185 meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated 186 from the competitive range. 187

1.5 Discussions 188

It is the Government’s intention to evaluate and award without discussions. If, however, during the 189 evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, 190 Offeror responses to the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection 191 decision. 192

1.6 Competitive Advantage from Use of GFP/GFI/GFE 193

The Government will make every effort to eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an 194 Offeror's proposed use of Government Furnished Property (GFP), Government Furnished Information 195 (GFI) or Government Furnished Equipment (GFE). 196

Page 7 of 23 DRAFT

2.0 M002 EVALUATION FACTORS – C2AD Contracts and RISC2 Delivery 198

Order 199 The Government will conduct evaluations of C2AD and RISC2 proposals together as described in 200 paragraphs 2.1 and 2.1.1. The LPTA evaluation will consider three (3) factors: Technical Acceptability, 201

Past Performance and Cost/Price. All technical criteria, both C2AD Subfactors and RISC2 Subfactors, 202 must be rated “Acceptable” to be considered Technically Acceptable as described in paragraph 2.2. 203

2.1 Evaluation Process 204

The evaluation process for C2AD and RISC2 awards will be conducted IAW the following paragraphs. 205 The Government will rank lowest to highest priced offers based on the Offerors’ proposed prices for 207 RISC2 (consisting of the proposed amounts for the Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) CLIN(s), Firm Fixed Price 208 (FFP) CLIN(s) and the Cost Reimbursable (CR) CLIN(s) (including $5,000 Post-Award Conference)). 209 The Government will initially select up to twelve (12) of the lowest proposed price proposals for further 210 evaluation. Based on the price competitiveness of the proposals received, the Government reserves the 211 right to select more than twelve (12) proposals for further evaluation if it is considered to be in the best 212 interest of the Government. If less than twelve (12) proposals are received, the Government will further 213 evaluate all offers. 214 The Government will evaluate the proposals for Technical and Past Performance “Acceptability” based 216 on paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3. If any proposal receives an “Unacceptable” rating in either Technical or Past 217 Performance, that proposal will no longer be considered for award unless discussions are determined 218 necessary. Provided there are additional proposals available, the unacceptable proposal will be replaced 219 with the next lowest proposed price proposal for further evaluation. This part of the evaluation process 220 will continue until twelve (12) or more Technical and Past Performance “Acceptable” proposals have 221 been identified or until all proposals have been evaluated for acceptability. 222 Next, the Government will evaluate all acceptable selected proposals for cost realism and price 224 reasonableness in accordance with the cost/price factor in paragraph 2.4. If the Government assesses a 225 proposed cost/price as being unrealistic or unreasonable, that proposal will no longer be considered for 226 award unless discussions are determined necessary. Provided there are additional proposals available, 227 the proposal assessed as having an unrealistic or unreasonable cost/price will be replaced with the next 228 lowest proposed price proposal for technical, past performance and cost/price evaluation. All proposals 229 having their cost/price assessed as realistic and reasonable, to include any Government Estimated Most 230 Probable Cost (GEMPC) adjustment will be placed in an “awardable offer” pool. This part of the 231 evaluation process will continue until there are twelve (12) or more proposals in the awardable offer 232 pool or all proposals have been evaluated for technical, past performance and cost/price. 233 The ultimate number of proposals in the "awardable offer" pool will be determined by the Source 235 Selection Authority (SSA) based on the sufficiency, quality and competitiveness of proposals received. In 236 the event that there are additional proposals available, the following steps will be accomplished: 237 The Government will compare the next lowest proposed priced offer against the highest RISC2 Total 239 Evaluated Price (TEP) (Paragraph 2.4.5) in the "awardable offer" pool. 240

Page 8 of 23 DRAFT

1. If the next proposed price is higher than the highest ID/IQ TEP in the "awardable offer" pool, 242 the Government will stop their evaluation and report the results to the SSA. 243

2. If the next lowest proposed price is lower or equal to the highest ID/IQ TEP in the "awardable 245 offer" pool, that proposal will then be evaluated for technical and past performance 246 acceptability. 247

a. If the proposal is found unacceptable for either technical or past performance 249 reasons, it will be no longer considered for award unless discussions are 250 determined necessary. 251

b. If the proposal is found acceptable in both the technical and past performance areas, 253 the cost/price factor will be evaluated. This will result in an ID/IQ TEP being applied to 254 the proposal and that ID/IQ TEP will then be compared against the highest ID/IQ TEP in 255 the "awardable offer" pool. 256

i. If the ID/IQ TEP of the newly evaluated proposal is lower than the highest 258 ID/IQ TEP in the "awardable offer" pool, that proposal will replace the highest 259 ID/IQ TEP proposal in the pool and the highest ID/IQ TEP proposal will no longer 260 be considered for award unless discussions are determined necessary. 261

ii. If the ID/IQ TEP of the newly evaluated proposal is equal to the highest ID/IQ 263 TEP proposal in the "awardable offer" pool, that proposal will be added to the 264 "awardable offer" pool. 265

iii. If the ID/IQ TEP of the newly evaluated proposal is higher than the highest 267 ID/IQ TEP proposal in the "awardable offer" pool, that newly evaluated proposal 268 will no longer be considered for award unless discussions are determined 269 necessary. 270 The Government will repeat the process identified above under number two (2) until either the 272 condition mentioned in number one (1) is valid or all remaining proposals have been evaluated. At that 273 time the Government will stop their evaluation and report the results to the SSA. The RISC2 DO will be 274 awarded to the Offeror with the lowest TEP in the final “awardable offer” pool. 275

2.2.1 Small Business Awards 276

The Government anticipates setting aside at least two (2) C2AD contracts for small businesses. The 277 initial evaluation process will be conducted IAW paragraph 2.2. If, at the end of the evaluation, there is 278 not a sufficient number (as determined by the SSA) of small businesses in the “awardable offer” pool, 279 the Government shall proceed per the following paragraphs. 280 The Government will initially select the additional number of desired small business proposals, “y”, of 282 the lowest proposed price proposals from small businesses for further evaluation. Based on the price 283 competitiveness of the proposals received, the Government reserves the right to select more than “y” 284 proposals for further evaluation if it is considered to be in the best interest of the Government; however 285 if less than “y” proposals are received from small businesses, the Government will further evaluate all 286 offers from small businesses. 287

Page 9 of 23 DRAFT

The Government will evaluate the small business proposals for Technical and Past Performance 289 “Acceptability” based on paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3. If any proposal receives an “Unacceptable” rating in 290 either Technical or Past Performance, that proposal will no longer be considered for award unless 291 discussions are determined necessary. Provided there are additional proposals available, the 292 unacceptable proposal will be replaced with the next lowest proposed price proposal for further 293 evaluation. This part of the evaluation process will continue until “y” or more Technical and Past 294 Performance “Acceptable” proposals have been identified or until all proposals have been evaluated for 295 acceptability. 296 Next, the Government will evaluate all acceptable selected proposals for cost realism and price 298 reasonableness in accordance with the cost/price factor in paragraph 2.4. If the Government assesses a 299 proposed cost/price as being unrealistic or unreasonable, that proposal will no longer be considered for 300 award unless discussions are determined necessary. Provided there are additional proposals available, 301 the proposal assessed as having an unrealistic or unreasonable cost/price will be replaced with the next 302 lowest proposed price proposal for technical, past performance and cost/price evaluation. All proposals 303 with a cost/price assessed as realistic and reasonable, to include any Government Estimated Most 304 Probable Cost (GEMPC) adjustment, will be placed in a “small business additional awardable offer” pool. 305 This part of the evaluation process will continue until there are “y” or more proposals in the small 306 business additional awardable offer pool or all proposals from small businesses have been evaluated for 307 technical, past performance and cost/price. 308 The ultimate number of proposals in the "small business additional awardable offer" pool will be 310 determined by the Source Selection Authority (SSA) based on the sufficiency, quality and 311 competitiveness of proposals received. In the event that there are additional proposals available, the 312 following steps are accomplished. 313 The Government will compare the next lowest proposed priced offer from a small business against the 315 highest RISC2 Total Evaluated Price (TEP) (Paragraph 2.4.5) in the "small business additional awardable 316 offer" pool. 317

1. If the next proposed price is higher than the highest ID/IQ TEP in the "small business 319 awardable offer" pool, the Government will stop their evaluation and report the results to the 320

SSA. 321

2. If the next lowest proposed price is lower or equal to the highest ID/IQ TEP in the "small 323 business additional awardable offer" pool, that proposal will then be evaluated for technical and 324 past performance acceptability. 325

a. If the proposal is found unacceptable for either technical or past performance 327 reasons, it will no longer be considered for award unless discussions are determined 328 necessary. 329

b. If the proposal is found acceptable in both the technical and past performance areas, 331 the cost/price factor will be evaluated. This will result in an ID/IQ TEP being applied to 332 the proposal and that ID/IQ TEP will then be compared against the highest ID/IQ TEP in 333 the "small business additional awardable offer" pool. 334

Page 10 of 23 DRAFT

i. If the ID/IQ TEP of the newly evaluated proposal is lower than the highest 336 ID/IQ TEP in the "small business additional awardable offer" pool, that proposal 337 will replace the highest ID/IQ TEP proposal in the small business additional 338 awardable offer pool, and the highest ID/IQ TEP proposal will no longer be 339 considered for award unless discussions are determined necessary. 340

ii. If the ID/IQ TEP of the newly evaluated proposal is equal to the highest ID/IQ 342 TEP proposal in the "small business additional awardable offer" pool, that 343 proposal will be added to the "small business additional awardable offer" pool. 344

iii. If the ID/IQ TEP of the newly evaluated proposal is higher than the highest 346 ID/IQ TEP proposal in the "small business additional awardable offer" pool, that 347 newly evaluated proposal will no longer be considered for award unless 348 discussions are determined necessary. 349 The Government will repeat the process identified above under number two (2) until either the 351 condition mentioned above in number one (1) is valid or all remaining small business proposals have 352 been evaluated. At that time the Government will stop its evaluation and report the results to the SSA. 353

2.2 Factor 1: Technical Acceptability 355

The Government Technical Evaluation Board will evaluate the technical proposals on an 356 Acceptable/Unacceptable basis as described in the following table. 357

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Table 2.2-1 – Technical Ratings 359 All technical criteria must be rated “Acceptable" to be considered Technically Acceptable. An 361 “Unacceptable” assessment will render the offer unawardable. Only those technical proposals 362 determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered 363 for award. The Government will evaluate the proposals against the following subfactors: 364

1. C2AD Subfactors: 366 Subfactor 1-1: Domain Knowledge 367 Subfactor 1-2: Software Development 368 Subfactor 1-3: Sustainment 369 Subfactor 1-4: Training 370 Subfactor 1-5: Test and Information Assurance 371

2. RISC2 Subfactors: 373 Subfactor 2-1: Technical Approach 374

Page 11 of 23 DRAFT

Subfactor 2-2: Integration, Test and Information Assurance 375 Subfactor 2-3: Program Management 376

2.2.1 Subfactor 1-1: Domain Knowledge (C2AD) 378

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal using the following criteria. The criterion will be 379 met when: 380

i. Offeror demonstrates sufficient, relevant knowledge of the following C2AD domains: 382

1. Theater of Operation-Level Command and Control 383

2. Air Battle Planning 384

3. Search and Rescue Mission Tasking/Monitoring 385

4. Unit-Level Command and Control 386

ii. Offeror demonstrates a thorough understanding of the challenges and circumstances unique 388 to fielding software systems to the Air Force and Joint military environments as well as a 389 thorough understanding of the risks in fielding to those environments 390

2.2.2 Subfactor 1-2: Software Development (C2AD) 392

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal using the following criteria. The criterion will be 393 met when: 394

i. Offeror’s proposed approach demonstrates effective processes to develop interoperable 396 software systems using open standards and interfaces that meet C2AD SOW objectives which 397 are also platform agnostic in regard to both the host platform and communicating with other 398 systems on other platforms 399

ii. Offeror demonstrates efficient and technically/cost effective software development 401 capabilities with emphasis on short-turn, iterative development cycles; also demonstrates 402 substantial knowledge of current Information Technology products and best practices 403

2.2.3 Subfactor 1-3: Sustainment (C2AD) 405

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal using the following criteria. The criterion will be 406 met when: 407

i. Offeror demonstrates effective ability to sustain automated information systems, especially 409 those developed by a third-party vendor 410

ii. Offeror demonstrates cost effective approaches to minimizing software lifecycle sustainment 412 costs from development to fielding and maintenance with an emphasis on continuous process 413 improvements. 414

2.2.4 Subfactor 1-4: Training (C2AD) 416

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal using the following criteria. The criterion will be 417 met when: 418

Page 12 of 23 DRAFT

i. Offeror demonstrates ability to economically and efficiently train users of newly developed 420 systems as well as provide refresher training for updated systems. 421

ii. Offeror’s proposed approach demonstrates effective techniques to continuously improve 423 training efficiency by reaching more end-users with better quality training products at reduced 424 costs 425

2.2.5 Subfactor 1-5: Test and Information Assurance (C2AD) 427

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal using the following criteria. The criterion will be 428 met when: 429

i. Offeror’s proposed approach demonstrates their ability to thoroughly and effectively test 431 software products, track test findings/deficiencies and correct issues, particularly in an agile 432 software development environment 433

ii. Offeror’s proposed approach demonstrates their ability to effectively adhere to DoD 435 Information Assurance (IA) requirements – particularly those described in the DoD Information 436 Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process (DIACAP) 437

iii. Offeror’s proposed approach demonstrates their ability to sufficiently improve internal test 439 processes in order to increase product quality and reduce development time – especially 440 through the use of automated test tools 441

2.2.6 Subfactor 2-1: Technical Approach (RISC2) 443

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal using the following criteria. The criterion will be 444 met when: 445

i. Offeror’s proposed approach effectively meets all requirements as described in the RISC2 SOO 447 and RISC2 SRD 448

ii. Offeror’s proposed approach demonstrates interoperability with TBMCS-FL interfaces, as 450 defined in the RISC2 SOO and TRD, as well as other external Mission Request systems 451

iii. Offeror demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the risks associated with 453 developing the RISC2 capability as well as describing sufficient mitigation strategies to prevent 454 or preclude adverse cost, schedule or performance impacts 455

iv. Offeror’s proposed approach demonstrates their ability to ensure support for future request 457 types will be supported by the RISC2 product with no interruption to operations 458

v. Offeror’s proposed approach demonstrates their effective ability to ensure the RISC2 product 460 is in compliance with the Air Operations Community of Interest (AO COI) standards and can 461 maintain compliance with future versions of the AO COI standards with minimal rework 462

Page 13 of 23 DRAFT

2.2.7 Subfactor 2-2: Integration, Test and Information Assurance (RISC2) 464

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal using the following criteria. The criterion will be 465 met when: 466

i. Offeror ’s proposed test approach effectively demonstrates the RISC2 software, illustrating 468 meeting the requirements found in the RISC2 SOO, in a Government approved operationally 469 relevant test facility with multiple types of requestors of missions 470

ii. Offeror demonstrates a thorough understanding of requirements and specific challenges to 472 incorporation of Information Assurance requirements described in the RISC2 SOO and 473 Information Assurance Technical Requirements Document 474

iii. Offeror’s proposed product test approach effectively ensures: 1) delivery timelines are met, 476 and 2) deficiencies are minimized, enabling positive fielding decisions 477

2.2.8 Subfactor 2-3: Program Management (RISC2) 479

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal using the following criteria. The criterion will be 480 met when: 481

i. Offeror provides a complete and comprehensive CSOW, CWBS, and CWBS Dictionary to cover 483 all tasks associated with meeting the RISC2 SOO requirements at the lowest level managed, but 484 at least to a minimum of Level 3; Offeror also provides a complete and comprehensive 485 Integrated Master Plan (IMP) and Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) to cover all tasks as 486 described in the RISC2 SOO as well as risk mitigation plans for significant risks identified 487

ii. Offeror identifies all proposed rights in technical data and computer software developed at 489 private expense with sufficient emphasis on the use of non-proprietary solutions. Note: The 490 Government will evaluate an offeror’s proposal consistent with 10 USC 2320 and applicable 491 regulations there under. To the extent permissible under these authorities, the Government is 492 seeking at a minimum, Government Purpose Rights IAW DFARS clauses 252.227-7013 & 493 252.227-7014, in the Offeror’s software, data and/or software documentation submissions. To 494 the extent the authorities above preclude the Government from prohibiting an offeror’s use of 495 Proprietary/Restricted use software, data and/or software documentation, the Government 496 may consider such use in its evaluation or in the establishment of a competitive range. 497

iii. Offeror’s proposed approach demonstrates a cost efficient and economically effective plan 499 to manage the program, and also to ensure Government visibility into the project schedule, 500 performance, and risk, as well as encouraging joint (Contractor/Government) problem solving 501 for issues and concerns as they arise 502

iv. Offeror’s proposed approach includes their plans that effectively outline how Small Business 504 firms will be involved in the DO execution 505

Page 14 of 23 DRAFT

2.3 Factor 2: Past Performance 507

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the 508 minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the performance 509 quality of the Offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertains to the 510 products and/or services outlined in this solicitation requirement. 511

2.3.1 Evaluation 513

The Past Performance evaluation considers the Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in 514 providing products and services that meet the users’ needs. The performance rating is assessed at the 515 overall Past Performance Factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance, 516 focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements. In conducting the Past 517 Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use information provided in the Offeror’s 518 Past Performance proposal volume, Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ), information obtained from 519 other sources such as, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or 520 similar systems, interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials, and 521 the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). The past performance team will review this 522 information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to the past performance assessment. 523 The Government will not consider in its assessment a past/present contract where performance cannot 524 be verified through the customer point of contact of that contract. 525

2.3.2 Assessment Ratings 527

The Past Performance Factor for each Offeror will receive a single rating of “Acceptable” or 528 “Unacceptable” as described in Table 2.3.2-1 – Past Performance Evaluation Ratings 529

Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

Unacceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the

Government has no reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Table 2.3.2-1 – Past Performance Evaluation Ratings 531 Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information 532 on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be 533 reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance 534 (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past 535 performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered 536 “acceptable.” 537

Page 15 of 23 DRAFT

2.3.3 Recency 539

Only past performance information that is recent will be evaluated. To be recent, the effort must have 540 been performed, in whole or in part, during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this 541 solicitation. The Government will not consider in its evaluation information concerning that part of any 542 effort occurring after the date of issuance of this solicitation. 543

2.3.4 Relevancy 545

The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to 546 determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the 547 scope, magnitude, and complexity of the C2AD effort. The relevancy of the Offeror's efforts will focus 548 on, but not be limited to the similarity of service/support, complexity of the effort; dollar value, contract 549 type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. 550 A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major 552 subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. In 553 determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the 554 effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being 555 reviewed and evaluated. Only Recent performance information rated by the team as Relevant will be 556 considered; recent performance information rated as Not Relevant will not be considered. The following 557 definitions will be used to determine relevancy of past performance. 558

Rating Definition

RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar 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.

Table 2.3.4-1 – Relevancy Definitions 560

2.3.5 Performance Quality Assessment 562

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. The quality 563 assessment consists of an evaluation of the PPQ responses, PPIRS information, CPARS, interviews with 564 Government customers and, if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA 565 officials or other sources known to the Government. The quality assessment may result in positive or 566 adverse findings. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and 567 severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and whether corrective actions have been effective 568 and resulted in sustained improvements. Offerors will be given an opportunity to respond to adverse PPI 569 the Government intends to use in its determination that is not already documented in the CPARS. The 570 following Performance Quality Assessment Rating definitions will be used to determine Acceptability: 571

Rating Definition

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required

Page 16 of 23 DRAFT effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Table 2.3.5-1 – Performance Quality Definitions 573 Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information 575 on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be 576 reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance 577 (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past 578 performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered 579 “acceptable.” 580 The Government will assess the overall performance of recent/relevant contracts based on the following 582 criteria: 583 Criteria 1: Cost Control 585

i. Offeror demonstrated ability to effectively control costs by meeting or 586 exceeding (less than estimated) original cost targets 587

ii. Offeror used effective management approach to ensure major program 588 elements established cost goals and tracked progress 589

Criteria 2: Schedule 591

i. Offeror demonstrated ability to effectively meet schedule goals as compared 592 to original program baseline estimates 593

ii. Offeror demonstrated successful project scheduling with realistic resource 594 loading such that major program goals met or exceeded schedule estimates 595

Criteria 3: Sub-contract Management 597

i. Offeror demonstrated ability to effectively manage sub-contractors through 598 established goals and deliveries 599

2.4 Factor 3: Cost/Price 601

The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 602 15.404-1 in order to determine if it is reasonable and realistic. For a price to be reasonable, it must 603 represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive 604 business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as 605 described in FAR 15.404-1. 606

2.4.1 Information Other than Cost or Pricing Data 608

Information other than certified cost or pricing data will be evaluated to determine cost realism and 609 reasonableness for the Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPFF) and Fixed Price Incentive Firm (FPIF) Contract Line 610 Item Numbers (CLINs). 611

Page 17 of 23 DRAFT

2.4.2 Cost/Price Reasonableness 613

Reasonableness is evaluated by assessing the acceptability of the Offeror’s methodology used in 614 developing cost estimates such that proposed costs and labor rates indicate a clear understanding of 615 solicitation requirements and reflect a sound approach to satisfying those requirements. Cost 616 information supporting a cost judged to be unrealistically low, and technical/management risk 617 associated with the proposal will be quantified by the Government evaluators. When the Government 618 evaluates an Offeror as unrealistically low or high compared to the Offeror’s anticipated costs of 619 performance and the Offeror fails to explain these estimated costs, the Government will consider, under 620 the applicable Proposal Risk subfactor, the Offeror’s lack of understanding of the technical requirements 621 of the corresponding Technical subfactor. 622 Unrealistically low proposed costs or prices estimates, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for 624 eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the 625 requirement or the Offeror has made an unrealistic proposal. 626 The Offeror’s Cost/Price Volume will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 628

15.404 Proposal Analysis Techniques, in order to determine if it is reasonable. Price is considered to be 629 reasonable when it represents a price that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to 630 prevailing market prices. IAW FAR 15.403-1(b) the Government may require submission of Data Other 631 Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data to the extent necessary to support a determination of fair and 632 reasonable price. 633

2.4.3 Cost Realism 635

A Cost realism analysis will be performed IAW FAR 15.404-1(d). The Government will perform a Cost 636 realism analysis on each CPIF CLIN in the RISC2 DO in order to determine the probable cost of 637 performance. The Government Estimate of Most Probable Cost (GEMPC) is determined by the 638 Cost/Price Realism Assessment (CPRA). A GEMPC analysis will be performed in the realism evaluation for 639 the CPIF CLINs only. The Government evaluation of cost realism will consider the extent to which 640 proposed costs indicate a clear understanding of solicitation requirements, and determine whether the 641 proposal reflects a sound approach to satisfying those requirements and whether the proposed labor 642 escalation and indirect factors are reasonable. 643 A significant difference between the Offeror’s proposed Cost/Price and the GEMPC will be considered an 645 indicator that the Offeror does not understand the requirement and will be reflected in the 646 Government’s realism analysis. In addition, significant differences between the Offeror’s proposed 647 Cost/Price and the GEMPC could cause the Government to rate the Offeror’s proposal as technically 648 unacceptable. 649 The GEMPC, not the contractor’s proposed cost, will be used for the purpose of evaluation to determine 651 best value. The Government will not reduce the Offeror’s proposal below the Offeror’s proposed prices 652 in making its GEMPC adjustment. However, while the results of this cost realism analysis may be used in 653 performance risk assessments and responsibility determinations, they will not be used to adjust the 654 offered prices. 655

Page 18 of 23 DRAFT

2.4.4 Unbalanced Pricing 657

Price analysis will be used to determine if the proposed rates are unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing exists 658 when, despite an acceptable total solicitation effort price, the price (rates) of one or more labor 659 categories is significantly over or under-stated as demonstrated by the application of price analysis 660 techniques. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and result in a higher proposal risk 661 rating or the offer may be rejected if the Government determines the lack of balance poses an 662 unacceptable risk to the Government (FAR 15.404-1(g)). 663

2.4.5 Burden of Proof 665

The burden of proof for cost realism and price reasonableness rests with the Offeror. 666

2.4.6 Total Evaluated Cost/Price (TEP) 668

The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. 669

2.4.6.1 C2AD (multiple awards to the pool) 671

The total evaluated cost/price to the Government for the C2AD ID/IQ contract will be derived by the 672 sum of the following: 673

a) DO1 – FFP CLIN 0001, Post-Award Conference, will be evaluated at $5,000 674

b) The RISC2 DO will also be evaluated, for this award, as follows: 675

1. CPIF CLINs 0004, 0008, 0012, and 0016 will be evaluated at the GEMPC plus the 676 proposed Target Fee amount. 677

2. FFP CLIN 0025 will be evaluated at the proposed CLIN prices. 678

3. CR CLIN 0026 will be evaluated at the proposed CLIN prices. 679

2.4.6.2 RISC2 (single award) 681

The total evaluated cost/price to the Government for the RISC2 award will be derived by the sum of the 682 following: 683

a) CPIF CLINs 0004, 0008, 0012, and 0016 will be evaluated at the GEMPC plus the proposed 685 Target Fee amount. 686

b) FFP CLIN 0025 will be evaluated at the proposed CLIN prices. 687

c) CR CLIN 0026 will be evaluated at the proposed CLIN prices. 688

2.4.6.3 ATOMS (single award) 690

The total evaluated cost/price to the Government for the ATOMS DO will be derived by the sum of the 691 following: 692

a) FPIF CLINs 0002, 0006, 0010, and 0014 will be evaluated at the proposed target cost 694 multiplied by the ceiling percentage of 120% (i.e., the ceiling price). A Cost Realism analysis will 695 be performed on the FPIF proposed prices; however, the price shall not be adjusted as a result 696 of this analysis. Rather, the results of the analysis may be used in performance assessment and 697 responsibility determination. 698

b) FFP CLIN 0025 will be evaluated at the proposed CLIN prices. 699

Page 19 of 23 DRAFT

c) CR CLIN 0026 will be evaluated at the proposed CLIN prices. 700

3.0 M003 EVALUATION FACTORS – ATOMS 701

3.1 Evaluation Factors and Their Relative Order of Importance 703 Award will be made to the Offeror(s) proposing a best value to the Government based upon an 704 integrated assessment of the evaluation factors…