SAM_DRAFT ASTRA Section M_30Apr25.pdf

Section M: Evaluation Factors for Award Solicitation Number: FA8604-25-R-B017

Section M

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD (EFFA)

FOR THE

ADVISORY SUPPORT & TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT ADMINISTRATION

(ASTRA)

SOLICITATION #FA8604-25-R-B017

30 APRIL 2025

M-1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

M-1.1 Best Value Tradeoff This acquisition will utilize the Best Value Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS), and DoD Source Selection Procedures 20 Aug 2022, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at Acquisition.gov. The Government will select the best overall offer(s), based upon an integrated assessment of Technical Rating, Technical Risk, Program Management and Price. Technical Rating, Technical Risk Rating, and Program Management are of equal importance and, when combined, are significantly more important than Price, but Price will contribute substantially to the source selection decision.

Contract(s) may be awarded to the Offerors who are deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation), and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the Offerors who give the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet the requirements. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

The Government intends to award four (4) contracts, for the NASIC Advisory Support & Technical Requirement Administration (ASTRA) Program. However, the Government reserves the right to award more or fewer contracts if the Source Selection Authority determines it is in the Government’s best interest considering the Government’s expected volume of work over the period of the contract, available funding, the need to sustain adequate competition, and the availability of award-eligible proposals at a reasonable price following completion of evaluations of the proposals received. The Government also reserves the right to make no award at all.

During the evaluation process, multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition. A competitive range is not currently set. The Government reserves the right to set a competitive range. The competitive range determination will be based on evaluation results.

The Government 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. A competitive range determination may eliminate Offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request, or for purposes of efficiency. If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range, they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

M-1.2 Discussions It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions. Therefore, Offerors are cautioned that their initial offers should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions with Offerors if the SSA determines that discussions are necessary at any time during the evaluation of the proposals. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306.

If the Procurement Contracting Officer (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, the PCO, 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. Communications conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors shall not constitute discussions. The PCO reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision. The competitive range, if required, may be reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2). Offeror’s may be restricted to a short suspense (i.e., less than 24 hours) in responding to the PCO during any discussion period.

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror is evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may increase the risk that the Offeror’s proposal will be determined unacceptable and, thus, ineligible for award.

M-1.3 Grossly Deficient The Government may reject any proposal from this competition prior to evaluating the proposal against the Evaluation Factors if an initial assessment of the proposal shows the proposal to be grossly deficient.

Grossly deficient proposals are proposals that fail to address essential requirements of the RFP or fail to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory requirements set forth in the RFP and do not represent a reasonable initial effort by the Offeror to address the requirements of the RFP.

M-1.4 Correction Potential of Proposals The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency.

The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

M-1.5 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 or subfactors.

Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for the award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for the award.

M-1.6 Contractor Responsibility In accordance with FAR 9.103, the PCO shall award contracts only to responsible vendors. No purchase or award shall be made unless the PCO makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them. The PCO shall require acceptable evidence of the prospective contractor’s current sound financial status, as well as the ability to obtain required resources if the need arises. In regard to resources, the contractor must be prepared to present acceptable evidence of subcontracts, commitments or explicit arrangements that will be in existence at the time of the contract award, to rent, purchase or otherwise acquire the needed facilities, equipment, services, materials, other resources or personnel.

Consideration of a prime contractor’s compliance with limitations on subcontracting shall be taken into account for the time period covered by the contract base period or quantities, plus option periods or quantities, if such options are considered when evaluating offers for award. Pursuant to FAR 9.104-4, the PCO reserves the right to request adequate evidence of responsibility on the part of any prospective subcontractor(s). In the absence of information clearly indicating that the prospective contractor is responsible, the PCO shall make a determination of non-responsibility.

M-2 Evaluation Process

M-2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors In order to be considered for award, a proposal must successfully pass the Entry Gate. Once the proposal passes the Entry Gate, the gate will no longer be part of the award decision. In addition, the following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Entry Gate: Compliance

Factor One: Technical

Subfactor One: Research and Development

Subfactor Two: Systems Engineering

Subfactor Three: Deep Subject Matter Expertise

Subfactor Four: Modeling and Simulation

Subfactor Five: NASIC Mission Support

Factor Two: Program Management

Subfactor One: Management Approach

Subfactor Two: Transition Approach

Subfactor Three: Organizational Conflict of Interest

Subfactor Four: Subcontracting Plan and Subcontractor Management

Subfactor Five: Small Business Participation Commitment Document

Factor Three: Price

TABLE 1 – ADJECTIVAL RATING (Applicable to Gate Criteria)

Adjectival Rating Description Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

TABLE 2 - TECHNICAL RATINGS (Applicable to all Technical Subfactors and Program Management Subfactors 1-4)

Color Rating

Adjectival 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 the requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

TABLE 3 – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS (Applicable to all Technical Subfactors and Program Management Subfactors 1-4)

Adjectival Rating

Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule 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 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 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 4 –SMALL BUSINESS RATING (Applicable to Program Management Subfactor 5)

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives

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

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

M-2.2. Entry Gate: Compliance

Description: This entry gate evaluates whether the Offeror possesses a Top-Secret facility clearance indicated by the DCSA National Industrial Security database (NISS).

Measure of Merit - Top Secret Facility Clearance: This requirement is met when the proposal provides written documentation the company has obtained a Top Secret facility clearance. If an

Offeror fails to provide evidence that it possesses a Top Secret Facility Clearance at the time of proposal submission, the Offeror will be considered ineligible for contract award and eliminated without further evaluation of its proposal.

Technical Risk Rating: Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses and/or a material failure, assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the Source Selection Evaluation Board’s identification of any weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses, as well as the Offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable) and document why that is or is not manageable. Each technical subfactor will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, excerpted below in Table 3.

M-2.3 Technical Factor The Government’s technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals, assigning a technical rating and a technical risk rating described below for each subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, ineligible for award. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion. The Offeror’s response to Entry Gate will be rated using the scales in Table 1. The Offeror’s response to Factors One and Two (including Subfactors One through Five for Factor One and Subfactors One through Four for Factor Two) will be rated using the scales in Tables 2 and 3. The Offeror’s response to Factor Two, Subfactor Five will be rated using the scales in Table 4.

M-2.3.1 Factor One: Technical The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

M-2.3.1.1 Subfactor One: Research and Development Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s ability to support Government execution of R&D programs to include planning, prototyping, and advocating. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal addresses all of the measures:

a. Measure of Merit 1: R&D Planning: Demonstrates a sound approach to develop and manage R&D programs.

b. Measure of Merit 2: Prototypes: Demonstrates a sound approach to analyze and assess R&D prototypes and facilitates their transition into operations.

c. Measure of Merit 3: Advocating: Demonstrates a sound approach to develop R&D proposals for the purpose of gaining advocacy or funding.

M-2.3.1.2 Subfactor Two: Systems Engineering Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s ability to support a broad range of systems engineering and architecture tasks. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal addresses all of the measures:

a. Measure of Merit 1: Digital Transformation: Demonstrates a sound approach to guide the digital transformation of an organization

b. Measure of Merit 2: IA/AI/ML: Demonstrates a sound approach to guiding Intelligent Automation, Artificial Intelligence or Machine Learning implementation.

M-2.3.1.3 Subfactor Three: Deep Subject Matter Expertise Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s ability to provide Deep Subject Matter Expertise in support of analytical methodologies, strategies, and processes, and to enhance understanding and appreciation of requirements, processes, programs, and capabilities. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal addresses all of the measures:

a. Measure of Merit 1: SME in NASIC Missions: Demonstrates a sound approach to provide deep technical expertise in phenomenology, sensors or results related to the NASIC mission areas

b. Measure of Merit 2: Technical Project Management: Demonstrates a sound approach to provide deep technical (proxy) project management.

c. Measure of Merit 3: Collaboration: Demonstrates a sound approach to provide deep mission expertise and experience to collaborate across the IC and DoD.

M-2.3.1.4 Subfactor Four: Modeling & Simulation Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s ability to support a broad range of Modelling & Simulation tasks. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal addresses all of the measures:

a. Measure of Merit 1: M&S of threat systems: Demonstrates a sound approach to guide the development and management of modelling and simulation programs that enable detailed characterization of adversary threat systems.

b. Measure of Merit 2: M&S of Engagements: Demonstrates a sound approach to guide the development and management of modelling and simulation programs that enable detailed characterization of engagement scenarios.

c. Measure of Merit 3: V&V of M&S: Demonstrates a sound approach to verify M&S systems provided by vendors meet all government requirements and validate the M&S systems also meet the needs of the expected users.

M-2.3.1.5 Subfactor Five: NASIC Mission Support Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s ability to provide a broad range of services that generally require specific skills but not specific knowledge about NASIC missions. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal addresses all of the measures:

a. Measure of Merit 1: Facility infrastructure support: Demonstrates a sound approach to assist the government with PWS section (3.9.1.5) Architectural and Facility engineering support

b. Measure of Merit 2: Secure Facilities: Demonstrates a sound approach to assist the government with PWS section (3.9.1.7) operation of classified facilities.

c. Measure of Merit 3: Information Technology and Cyber Security: Demonstrates a sound approach to assist the government with PWS section (3.9.1.8) IT & Cyber tasks.

d. Measure of Merit 4: Other mission support: Demonstrates a sound approach to assist the government with one or more of the tasks in PWS sections (3.4, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9).

M-2.3.2 Factor Two: Program Management Description: The Government’s technical evaluation team will evaluate the proposals, assigning a rating and a risk rating for each subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, ineligible for award. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award.

However, the Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion. The Offeror’s response to Subfactor One through Four will be rated using the scale in Tables 2 and 3. A rating of “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, ineligible for award. The Offeror’s response to Subfactor Five will be rated using the scale in Table 4. A rating of “Unacceptable” on Subfactor 5 will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, ineligible for award.

M-2.3.2.1 Subfactor One: Management Approach Description: This subfactor will assess the Offeror’s sound approach to management requirements for each functional area in the PWS:

a. Measure of Merit 1: IDIQ Management: This measure of merit is met when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the scope of management (to include on-site management) required to accomplish ASTRA requirements called out in the IDIQ and task order PWS’s with regards to managing personnel across various task orders and shifts to ensure seamless, uninterrupted quality support to the customer. (PWS 3.1) Additionally, this portion of the measure of merit is met when the Offeror’s proposal reflects a defined and comprehensive management approach (CMA) with regards to an operations and maintenance strategic approach for execution of daily operations.

b. Measure of Merit 2: Security: This Measure of Merit is met when a) The Offeror’s proposal describes a sound approach for security process for ensuring personnel understand and comply with applicable security requirements for a Top Secret (TS)//SCI contract. b) The Offeror’s proposal identifies the specific process and policies in place to address security-related issues, to include violations and infractions (including actions taken to address actual violations/infractions in the past, if applicable). c) The Offeror’s proposal describes experience as appropriate to substantiate the Offeror’s capability to manage a TS//SCI contract. d) The Offeror shall describe their approach to having current TS/SCI cleared personnel.

c. Measure of Merit 3: Human Resources: This Measure of Merit is met when the proposal describes a sound approach to perform approximately 75% of the work within 25 miles of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base; reflects a sound management strategy and the ability to attract, recruit, hire, train, and retain qualified management and technical personnel to meet contract and task order requirements.

d. Measure of Merit 4: Staffing Approach: This measure of merit is met when: a) The Offeror’s organizational chart reflects a sound manning approach to staff, manage, and maintain all the PWS requirements and the chart demonstrates a complete understanding of each functional area of the PWS. b) The narrative demonstrates a complete understanding of the positions and qualifications necessary to execute each functional area of the PWS

M-2.3.2.2 Subfactor Two: Transition Approach:

Description: This subfactor will assess the Offeror’s Transition Approach to include staffing, management, equipment, supplies, and security considerations.

a. Measure of Merit 1: This measure of merit is met when the Offeror’s proposed Transition Approach demonstrates a sound approach for transitioning the services from the incumbent contractor, while maintaining continuity of all contracted services throughout the transition period.

M-2.3.2.3 Subfactor Three: Organizational Conflict of Interest:

Description: This subfactor will assess the Offeror’s sound approach to address OCI issues and risks:

a. Measure of Merit: Organizational Conflict of Interest. This measure of merit is met when the proposal describes an approach that ensures detection, disclosure, avoidance and mitigation of OCI issues and risks, to include those resulting from teaming arrangements, at the ASTRA IDIQ contract and task order levels. The approach must include adequate employee conflict of interest training and compliance with non-disclosure policies and directives and include specific Prime experience or staff qualifications to substantiate the Offeror’s capability.

M-2.3.2.4 Subfactor Four: Subcontracting Plan and Subcontractor Management:

Description: This subfactor will assess the Offeror’s sound approach to comply with the Limitations on Subcontracting and subcontractor management.

a. Measure of Merit: This measure of merit is met when the Offeror describes a sound approach for complying with the Limitations of Subcontracting IAW FAR 52.219-14.

M-2.3.2.5 Subfactor Five: Small Business Participation Commitment Document:

Description: This subfactor will assess the Offeror’s sound approach as well as the Offeror’s ability to meet small business participation requirements.

a. Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the Offeror provides a sound approach to utilization of small businesses, as documented in the Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD). An Offeror’s SBPCD will be considered an adequate approach when satisfying information required by paragraph 4.2.5.5, Section L and committing to the utilization of small business of at least 30% of the proposed value of all Task Orders in the aggregate. An Offeror’s SBPCD will be considered to indicate a thorough approach when satisfying information required by paragraph 4.2.5.5, Section L and committing to the utilization of small business over 30% and up to and including 34% of the proposed value of all Task Orders in the aggregate. An Offeror will be considered to indicate an exceptional approach when satisfying information required by paragraph 4.2.5.5, Section L and committing to the utilization of small business in excess of 35% of the proposed value of the total aggregate Task Order value.

M-2.3.3 Factor Three: Price

M-2.3.3.1 Price Factor The Price Factor is currently in progress and is excluded from this draft. The Price Factor will be provided with the Official Request For Proposal.

M-3 Pre-Award Survey The Government may conduct a pre-award survey (PAS) as part of this source selection. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine each Offeror’s capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.