RFP_Attachment_2_DRAFT_ATSA-I_Section_M_April82024..pdf

DRAFT M-900 – EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

AUTOMATIC TEST SYSTEMS ACQUISITION – I (ATSA-I)

RFP: FA8533-24-R-0002

RFP ATTACHMENT 2

M-900. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology

This acquisition will utilize a hybrid Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) and technical-only source selection methodology in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the DAFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. This source selection will be conducted without tradeoffs. A decision on the acceptability of each Offeror’s technical and small business participation proposals will be made. An unacceptable rating will result in Offerors being ineligible for award. Past performance and cost/price will not be evaluated. Cost/Price will be evaluated at the order level. The Government shall evaluate proposals in accordance with this provision. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each Offeror. Award will be made to responsible Offerors whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, and meets all requirements set forth in the RFP as described below. The Government reserves the right not to award any contracts under this solicitation. If the Government determines not to award a contract, the Government will not be liable for costs incurred by Offerors.

The Government does not intend to use non-Government advisors or evaluators in this source selection evaluation.

B. Factors and Relative Importance

1. Factors: A detailed and complete analysis of each Offeror’s proposal will be performed. The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors:

Factor I: Technical

Factor II. Small Business Participation

2. Relative Importance: The Government is not evaluating cost/price; cost/price will be evaluated at the order level. As the Government is not evaluating cost/price, there will be no tradeoffs to be made. Factor I, Technical and Factor II, Small Business participation will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.

II. Proposal Evaluation The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by volume):

A. General

1. 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.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. Completed RFP: Volume I, Completed RFP shall be evaluated to ensure the RFP and any amendments issued are signed, and all “fill-in” clauses and provisions are completed as required. The cover letter shall be evaluated to determine the number, types, and accompanying rationale of exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions.

Offerors are reminded that the Government may independently identify exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions not listed in this cover letter. The Government reserves the right to determine any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions as being non-compliant with the stated RFP requirements, and thus render the proposal not eligible for award.

2. Small Business Subcontracting Plan: The small business subcontracting plan will be evaluated per FAR 52.219-9, as supplemented by the DFARS and DAFFARS, to assure it reflects a sound approach to the Offeror’s proposed small business subcontracting. Failure by the large business Offeror to submit this small business subcontracting plan will result in the Offeror being considered as failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions, and thus render the proposal not eligible for award.)

C. Volume II, Technical Factor

1. General: Each Offeror’s technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the ATSA-I self-score matrix, to determine if the Offeror demonstrates experience in any of the three (3) identified Focus Area Categories as detailed in the ATSA-I Focus Area Categories section below. The technical proposal shall provide substantiating documentation for the Government’s validation of the Offeror’s submitted self-score.

This technical factor is met when the Offeror’s ATSA-I self-score matrix with a maximum of three (3) recent/relevant work samples are validated and determined by the Government to substantiate the Offeror’s self-score. The work samples shall represent contracts/orders of work performed for the United States Government and be within the last five (5) years from the proposal due date.

In order to maximize the Offeror’s ATSA-I self-score matrix, the Government recommends that each submitted work sample shows expertise across multiple Focus Area Categories. The burden of proof for substantiating points in the Offeror Self-Scoring Matrix rests solely with the Offeror. The Government reserves the right to contact the Government POCs identified in the work samples, or any other resources deemed necessary for any or all evaluation criteria during validation of self-scores.

The Offeror must show experience in at least one element of a Focus Area Category in order to get a point on the ATSA-I self-score matrix. The maximum self-score that an Offeror can claim for any given work sample is three

(3) points: one for each Focus Area Category. If the Government determines that an Offeror’s substantiating documentation is insufficient to support the self-score in a Focus Area Category, the Government will decrement a point for any Focus Area Category found to be insufficient. Consequentially, the total work sample self-score could potentially be decremented to zero (0) points.

ATSA-I Focus Area Categories

a) ATS Sustainment/Logistical Support

This Focus Area Category represents the capability of the Offeror to perform sustainment/logistical support activities in support of Automated Test Systems (ATS). Example activities which could be used to demonstrate a proficiency include (but are not limited to) the following:

ATS supportability studies ATS reverse engineering efforts ATS logistics data analysis ATS deficiency investigations ATS System Contract Logistics Support (CLS), Interim Contractor Support (ICS), and

Performance Based Logistics (PBL) contracts, which would include supply chain management, maintenance management, and sustainment engineering efforts

Implementing form, fit, function solutions for ATS to mitigate system obsolescence

b) ATS Integration/Development

This Focus Area Category represents the capability of the Offeror to identify automatic test solutions and design/develop hardware and software to integrate them in new or existing ATS. Example activities which could be used to demonstrate a proficiency include (but are not limited to) the following:

Designing ATS hardware interface cabling and compatible software layers Providing ATS solutions at DoD locations for all maintenance levels including Depot or Field

(Intermediate or Organizational), as well as developmental testing in systems integration labs Developing ATS technical data packages and thoroughly documented software build projects including all source code to provide Government-owned products and solutions Developing technical orders for ATS technical content and operations

Implementing cybersecurity controls in ATS controller operating systems Developing ATS product documentation including system requirements specifications, interface control documents, system product specifications, and software version descriptions Designing service life extension projects to meet existing capabilities of obsolete ATS Presenting ATS design reviews and periodic status updates

c) ATS Digital Engineering/Innovation

This Focus Area Category represents the capability of the Offeror to apply an integrated digital approach that uses authoritative sources of systems' data and models as a continuum across disciplines to support lifecycle activities from concept through disposal for ATS. Example activities which could be used to demonstrate a proficiency include (but are not limited to) the following:

Defining ATS requirements, specifications, and deliverables accurately using digital engineering methods such as the System Modeling Language (SysML)

Maintaining and modifying ATS system models using SysML tools to reflect the technical baseline for a system on contract and be able to provide Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs) that include anticipated system modifications from the SysML reference architecture

Designing ATS hardware using modern tools for modeling and simulation Developing ATS software in accordance with the DoD DevSecOps Reference Architecture

2. Technical Rating: The Offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One technical rating will be assigned to the Technical factor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating for the technical factor.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The total score on the self-score matrix must result in at least a one (1) point to be considered technically acceptable.

A total self-score matrix score resulting in a zero (0) means the technical factor will be determined as unacceptable.

Unsubstantiated or misleading claims could result in the Government determining that the Offeror’s proposed self-scoring matrix is disingenuous and/or artificially inflated, thereby resulting in the proposal being determined unacceptable.

D. Volume III, Small Business Participation Factor

1. General: Each Offeror’s Small Business Participation proposal shall be evaluated, based on the elements below, to determine if the Offeror provides an adequate approach to meeting the objectives of the Small Business Program, and demonstrates an understanding of those objectives. The Small Business Participation proposal addresses each of the following elements in sufficient detail.

a) This element is met when the proposal has provided an acceptable approach identifying at least three methods the Offeror intends to utilize to ensure small businesses* have equitable opportunities to compete for subcontracts on all task/delivery orders.

b) This element is met when the proposal has provided an acceptable approach identifying at least three methods the Offeror intends to utilize to develop subcontracting goals to meet and exceed Air Force small businesses* goals in all task/delivery orders.

c) This element is met when the proposal has provided an acceptable approach identifying at least two outreach methods the Offeror intends to utilize in locating small businesses* for subcontracting on all task/delivery orders.

Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

*Small Businesses include service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns.

NOTE: The Government intends to incorporate the acceptable proposal plan into each Offeror’s resultant contract.

The evaluation of proposed small business* goals may be included at the task/delivery order level.