Section M.pdf

Source Selection Information See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 – CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

PART IV- REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 (CUI) SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 (CUI) Source Selection Methodology This acquisition will utilize the Trade-Off source selection procedures in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection procedures referenced in Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 215.300 and Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS)

5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. These regulations are available electronically at acquisition.gov. In using best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the offeror who provides the United States Air Force (USAF) the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed the P5 System Security Update (SSU) contract requirements, in a way that will be the most advantageous to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher Total Evaluated Price (TEP) offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical superiority and/or overall business approach of the higher priced offeror is determined to be the best value to the Government. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this document. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the trade-off 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.

1.2 (U) Correction Potential of Proposals The Government may consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any proposal. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable within the Government’s time constraints, the offeror may be eliminated from the competition in accordance with FAR 15.306(c).

Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets or exceeds all requirements set forth in the Request for Proposal (RFP), and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in Section 2 below.

1.3 (U) Discussions The offeror is reminded that the Government intends to award on the initial proposal without discussions; however, the Government reserves the right, if it is determined to be in its best interest, to hold discussions. If the Government holds discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Request for Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal remains in the competitive range at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal may be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award or may affect the offeror’s ratings.

1.4 (U) Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award one contract for the P5 Combat Training System (CTS) System Security Update (SSU) program; however, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals, prices submitted, and the availability of funds.

1.5 (U) Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions Offerors must meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors and subfactors. The offeror (including their subcontractors or suppliers, or potential subcontractors or suppliers, at any tier) shall identify all technical data and computer software that they propose to be delivered or otherwise provided and the license rights with which each item will be delivered. The offeror shall complete all tables and appendices of Section J, Attachment L-6, Government Rights in Data (GRID) of the solicitation, including the addition of any CDRLs that are proposed in addition to those listed. The offeror's failure to submit the required information in Volume V (Contract Documentation) of Section L as well as identification and assertions required by DFARS 252.227- 7017, Identification and Assertion of Use, Release, or Disclosure Restrictions with their offer may render the offer ineligible for 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. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors and subfactors.

2.0 (CUI) EVALUATION FACTORS, SUBFACTORS AND ELEMENTS

The following evaluation factors, subfactors and elements will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Award will be made to the offeror most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors, subfactors and elements described below:

Factor 1 – Technical

Subfactor 1 – System Test, Qualification and Certification Element A – Test Infrastructure Element B – Maintenance Procedures Element C – NSA Certification Status

Subfactor 2 – Data Security Module (DSM) Technical Solution

Element A – NSA compliant DSM architecture Element B – Future Growth Opportunities

Subfactor 3 – Program Schedule

Element A – DSM Component Readiness Levels Element B – NSA Certification Schedule Element C – Integrated Test Schedule Element D – Kit Production Schedule

Factor 2 – Small Business (SB) Participation

Subfactor 1 – FAR Part 19 Firms Identified Subfactor 2 – Identification of SB Participants Subfactor 3 – Identification of Type and Variety of Work Subfactor 4 – Extent of SB Participation

Factor 3 – Price

2.1 (CUI) RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Subfactors in Factor 1 - TECHNICAL will receive a color rating. Subfactors in Factor 2 – SB PARTICIPATION will receive a color rating. Within the Factor 1 - TECHNICAL, the subfactors are approximately equal in importance. Within Factor 2 – SB PARTICIPATION, the subfactors are approximately equal in importance. The TECHNICAL factor is more important than the SB PARTICIPATION factor. Factor 3 – PRICE, is last in importance. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

The Technical Rating includes consideration of proposal strengths and deficiencies, defined below:

Strength: An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. (See FAR 15.001)

The separate Technical Risk Rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with proposal weaknesses, defined below:

Weakness: a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

(See FAR 15.001)

Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (See FAR 15.001)

2.2 (CUI) TECHNICAL AND SB PARTICIPATION FACTORS

The TECHNICAL evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings have approximately equal impact for the rating of each TECHNICAL subfactor.

file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR15.DOC#b15304

(1) (CUI) Technical Rating. The Technical Rating provides an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each TECHNICAL subfactor will receive a color rating per Table 1 below (as described in Table 2A DoD Source Selection Procedures). They focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the TECHNICAL subfactor requirements.

TABLE 1. Technical Rating Method

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

(Color ratings per DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2A – Technical Rating Method)

(2) (CUI) Technical Risk Rating. Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, assess 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, or unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the Source Selection Team’s identification of any weaknesses and/or signification weaknesses. Each TECHNICAL subfactor will receive a Technical Risk Rating (in addition to the color adjectival rating in section 2.2(1)) per Table 2 below (as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2B).

TABLE 2. Technical Risk Rating Method

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.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA007183-10-DPAP.pdf http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA007183-10-DPAP.pdf

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.

(Technical Risk ratings per DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2B – Technical Risk Rating Method)

(3) (CUI) SB Participation Rating. The SB Participation Rating provides an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each SB Participation subfactor will receive a color rating per Table 3 below (as described in Table 6 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures). They focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the SB PARTICIPATION subfactor requirements.

TABLE 3. SB Rating Method

Color

Description

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

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the SB objectives.

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

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

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet SB objectives.

(Color ratings per DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 6 – SB Rating Method)

3.0 (CUI) TECHNICAL FACTOR

The technical volume will be evaluated to determine the degree which the offeror addresses each subfactor and shows evidence of meeting or exceeding the minimum requirements therein. The Government will evaluate the proposal for an approach that demonstrates the offeror’s ability to successfully complete requirements within program timelines to determine which offeror proposes the best value. As part of Section L, Volume II, the Government will evaluate the following three TECHNICAL subfactors.

3.1 (CUI) Subfactor 1 - System Test, Qualification and Certification Offerors will be evaluated to the degree which their proposed approach satisfies the system test, qualification and certification requirements as established in the Statement of Work (SOW), System Requirements Document (SRD) and Technical Security Requirements Document (TSRD) relative to the objectives and requirements established in the SOW as referenced in each element.

The Government will evaluate the following elements to determine to the degree which the offeror meets or exceeds the subfactor requirements:

3.1.1 (CUI) Element A – Test Infrastructure – The Government will evaluate to the degree which the offeror plans to obtain the necessary contractor test infrastructure and personnel required for qualification and certification of the P5CTS system components. The plan shall address test equipment, support equipment, test plans, personnel training, required Government Furnished Property (GFP), and software (to include diagnostic aids) that will be necessary to successfully conduct the contractor flight qualification, component level testing, and system integration testing as required in SOW sections 2.0, 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.5.9.

3.1.2 (CUI) Element B – Maintenance Procedures – The Government will evaluate to the degree which the offeror describes an encryption keying approach that minimizes maintenance actions for field personnel. The proposal shall describe how the solution complies with Key Management Infrastructure (KMI) requirements utilizing standard AF Communication Security (COMSEC) equipment, and minimizes maintenance actions. The description shall include keying procedures and timelines, key loading/zeroizing, monitoring status, and retaining key currency (SOW section 4.1.4).

3.1.3 (CUI) Element C – NSA Certification Status – The Government will evaluate to the degree which the offeror demonstrates that their proposed technical solution has been previously certified by the NSA for an airborne application (either by the offeror or the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM). The offeror shall include certification status of their DSM solution. The offeror shall provide documented evidence of the certification status, such as NSA approval.

(SOW sections 2.0, 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.2 and 4.2.6).

3.2 (CUI) Subfactor 2 – DSM Technical Solution Offerors will be evaluated to the degree which the proposal satisfies the DSM function, and maintains the Red/Black separation in the updated P5 Air Subsystem (AS), as well as describes the key system attributes that could support future USAF initiatives as described in the SOW, TSRD and SRD relative to the objectives and requirements established in the SOW as referenced in each element.

The Government will evaluate the following elements to determine if the offeror meets or exceeds the subfactor requirements:

3.2.1 (CUI) Element A – NSA Compliant DSM Architecture – The Government will evaluate to the degree which the offeror’s proposal meets current red/black separation requirements with a NSA compliant architecture. The plan shall describe all hardware and software enhancements to the P5 AS architecture they propose, as well as key system attributes their solution offers to meet current NSA security requirements, including Foreign Military Sales (FMS) releasability status, as well as risks associated with FMS exportability (SOW sections 1.0, 2.0, 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.1.1 and 4.1.1.2).

3.2.2 (CUI) Element B – Future Growth Opportunities – The Government will evaluate to the degree which the offeror describes the ability of their DSM technical approach to provide future growth opportunities. The plan shall describe how key system attributes will allow implementation of future USAF initiatives, such as Proficiency Based Training (PBT), Performance Evaluation and Tracking System (PETS), and Multiple Levels of Security (MLS).

(SOW sections 1.0, 2.0, 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.1.1 and 4.1.1.2).

3.2.3 (CUI) Element C – Rights in Data and Software Identification and Assertion – The Government will evaluate to the degree which the offeror describes technical data and software CDRLs and the applicable license right assertions in the completed Section J, Attachment L-6, GRID. The Government will evaluate the proposed GRID solution impact on the Government’s ability to sustain and maintain the system through future full and open competitive sustainment actions, and reduce life cycle costs. The offeror shall complete all tables and appendices in the GRID attachment of the solicitation. Failure to submit, complete all tables, or sign the identification and assertions required by DFARS 252.227-7017, Identification and Assertion of Use, Release, or Disclosure Restrictions with their offer may render the offer ineligible for award (SOW sections 4.4, 4.4.2, 4.7.3.1, Appendix B sections 2.0, 3.0, 6.0 and 7.0).

3.3 (CUI) Subfactor 3 – Program Schedule Offerors will be evaluated to the degree which the offerors proposal meets the key program events and milestones schedule as described in the SOW, TSRD and SRD relative to the objectives and requirements established in the SOW as referenced in each element.

The Government will evaluate the following elements to determine if the offeror meets or exceeds the subfactor requirements:

3.3.1 (CUI) Element A – DSM Component Readiness Levels – The Government will evaluate to the degree which the offeror meets the Technical Readiness Levels (TRL) and Manufacturing Readiness Levels (MRL) that satisfy program requirements for each major DSM component.

The offeror shall provide a self-assessment of the current TRL and MRL for their DSM components in the format specified by ISO 16290-2013 and the MRL Deskbook. The proposal shall provide a detailed assessment of the technical and manufacturing maturity of each DSM component, and include data that supports the self-assessment. In addition, the proposal shall identify items as developmental or non-developmental components (SOW sections 1.0, 2.0, 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.1.1, 4.1.1.2, 4.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.2 and 4.6.11).

3.3.2 (CUI) Element B – NSA Certification Schedule – The Government will evaluate to the degree which the offeror describes an approach within program timelines for obtaining NSA certification of their encryption device for use in the P5CTS. The offeror shall provide an NSA Certification Section of their Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) that includes events and milestones (SOW sections 2.0, 4.2.6 and 4.5.5).

3.3.3 (CUI) Element C – Integrated Test Schedule – The Government will evaluate to the degree which the offeror’s proposal provides a test schedule that demonstrates the ability to successfully complete qualification and certification tests within the SOW requirements. The offeror shall provide the Test Section of their IMS describing the qualification and certification timeline for test events and milestones, and address how that supports air worthiness certification, SEEK EAGLE approval, and the kit production decision within program timelines.

(SOW sections 2.0, 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.5.5).

3.3.4 (CUI) Element D – Kit Production Schedule – The Government will evaluate to the degree which the offeror describes their production timelines that satisfies program requirements.

The offeror shall provide the Production Section of their IMS describing events and milestones relating to the kit production schedule. (SOW sections 4.1, 4.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.3, 4.5.5).

4.0 (CUI) SB PARTICIPATION FACTOR

The SB volume will be evaluated to the degree which the offeror addresses each subfactor and shows evidence of meeting or exceeding the minimum requirements therein. The Government will evaluate the proposal for an approach that demonstrates the offeror’s ability to meet SB goals as established in the SOW section 4.5.3. SB Participation is not to be confused with the SB Subcontracting Plan. All offerors will evaluated on their SB Participation. As part of Section L, Volume III, the Government will evaluate the following four SB subfactors to determine if the offeror meets or exceeds the requirements:

4.1 (CUI) Subfactor 1 – FAR Part 19 Firms Identified – The Government will evaluate to the degree which the firms as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals (SOW section 4.5.3).

4.2 (CUI) Subfactor 2 – Identification of SB Participants – The Government will evaluate to the degree which offerors demonstrate substantive commitment to SB firms, such as, letters of commitment, Joint Ventures, mentor/protégé agreements, or other demonstrations of commitment (Note: binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements) (SOW section 4.5.3).

4.3 (CUI) Subfactor 3 – Identification of Type and Variety of Work – The Government will evaluate to the degree which the type and variety of the work of small firms are to perform is identified (Note: (binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements) (SOW section 4.5.3).

4.4 (CUI) Subfactor 4 – Extent of SB Participation – The Government will evaluate to the extent SB prime offerors and SB subcontractors participate in terms of the value of the total acquisition (total contract value) (Note: binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements) (SOW section 4.5.3).

5.0 (CUI) PRICE EVALUATION FACTOR

5.1 (CUI) Evaluation Criteria Offerors shall be ranked according to the TEP. The pricing criteria used for evaluation of the Price Evaluation Factor will be (1) Reasonableness, (2) Balance, and (3) TEP. The Government will evaluate the following elements to determine if the offeror meets or exceeds the requirements:

5.1.1 (CUI) Reasonableness The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

5.1.2 (CUI) Balance The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices, variations in regards to the SSU Pricing Workbook quantity ranges, and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

5.1.3 (CUI) TEP

The offeror’s TEP will be calculated for use in evaluation of offers and will be a consideration in the best value award decision. The TEP will be the summation of Firm-Fixed Priced (FFP) contract line items to include the SSU Pricing Workbook, located in Section J, utilizing Government notional quantities. Notional quantities will not be disclosed and will be used for evaluation purposes only. The Government will utilize the offeror’s SSU Pricing Workbook in its evaluation. The TEP is for award purposes only and does not become a contractually binding amount after contract award; however, the unit prices within the Pricing Worksheet will be contractually binding. Notional quantities will not be disclosed to the offerors. The offeror’s TEP will be the sum of the following:

5.1.3.1 The Firm Fixed (FFP) CLIN 0001, P5 SSU Kit Integration and Qualification (USAF), will be evaluated utilizing offeror proposed prices for total CLIN price based on completing all tasks required to complete integration and qualification as specified in SOW sections 2.0, 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.9, 4.11 and 5.0.

5.1.3.2 The FFP CLIN 0002, P5 SSU Kit Integration and Qualification (FMS), will be evaluated utilizing offeror proposed prices for total CLIN price based on completing all tasks required to complete integration and qualification as specified in SOW sections 2.0, 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.9, 4.11 and 5.0.

5.1.3.3 The FFP CLIN 0003, deliver Airborne Subsystems Retrofit Kits (USAF) as specified in SOW sections 2.0, 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.5 and 4.5.5, utilizing offeror proposed prices multiplied by government determined notional quantities.

5.1.3.4 The FFP CLIN 0004, deliver Airborne Subsystems Retrofit Kits (FMS) as specified in SOW sections 2.0, 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.5 and 4.5.5, utilizing offeror proposed prices multiplied by government determined notional quantities.

5.1.3.5 The FFP CLIN 0005, deliver Airborne Subsystems Retrofit Kit Spares (USAF) as specified in SOW sections 2.0, 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.5 and 4.5.5, utilizing offeror proposed prices multiplied by government determined notional quantities.

5.1.3.6 The FFP CLIN 0006, deliver Airborne Subsystems Retrofit Kit Spares (FMS) as specified in SOW sections 2.0, 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.5 and 4.5.5, utilizing offeror proposed prices multiplied by government determined notional quantities.

5.1.3.7 The Not Separately Priced (NSP) Data CLIN 0007 (USAF) costs shall be included in the other proposed prices.

5.1.3.8 The NSP Data CLIN 0008 (FMS) costs shall be included in the other proposed prices.

5.1.3.9 The FFP CLIN 0009, deliver Technical Data (USAF), as specified in SOW sections 2.0,

4.0 and 5.0 will be evaluated utilizing offeror proposed prices for total CLIN price based on completing all tasks required to deliver technical data.

5.1.3.10 The FFP CLIN 0010, deliver Technical Data (FMS), as specified in SOW sections 2.0, 4.0 and 5.0 will be evaluated utilizing offeror proposed prices for total CLIN price based on completing all tasks required to deliver technical data.

5.1.3.11 The FFP CLIN 0011, deliver First Article Testing, as specified in SOW section

4.2.7 and 5.0 will be evaluated utilizing offeror proposed prices for total CLIN price based on completing all tasks required to complete First Article Testing

5.1.3.12 The FFP CLIN 0012, deliver First Article Test Data, as specified in SOW section

4.2.7 and 5.0 will be evaluated utilizing offeror proposed prices for total CLIN price based on completing all tasks required to deliver First Article data

5.1.3.13 The FFP CLIN 0013, deliver First Article AS Retrofit kits, as specified in SOW section 4.2.7, will be evaluated utilizing offeror proposed prices for total CLIN price.