SEI Section M.pdf

FA8629-22-R-5031

Section M

19 November 2021

This document contains CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION (CUI) which must be protected under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and/or the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a). Unauthorized disclosure or misuse of this Source Selection Material and its attachments may result in disciplinary action, criminal and/or civil penalties.

Further distribution is prohibited without the approval of the Contracting Officer of this message unless the recipient has a need to know in the performance of official duties.

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

This is a Best Value Subjective Tradeoff Source Selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at Acquision.gov, https://acquisition.gov/. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk, Past Performance and Cost/Price of whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements to include all terms and conditions, reports, and all information referred by section L of this solicitation and is judged based on the evaluation factors and subfactors. The Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract may be awarded to the Offeror deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.1, 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 Offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical and/or overall business approach of the higher price Offeror outweighs the cost difference. 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 evaluation 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.

1.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one contract for the SE&I Program.

1.2 Competitive Advantage from Use of GFP

The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an Offeror's proposed use of Government-furnished property (GFP) beyond that specifically identified by this solicitation. For evaluation purposes only, the Government will apply a rental equivalent

19 November 2021 evaluation factor as specified in FAR 52.245-9 and as shown in Section L, Attachment 5, Pricing Matrix. See Section L paragraph 4.3.2.2 for GFP request instructions.

1.3 Discussions

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions in accordance with FAR 15.306, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable 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 be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.0 Evaluation Gate, Factors and Subfactors

2.0.1 Evaluation Gate

Description: Proposals will be evaluated for demonstrated experience developing Digitally Aided Close Air Support (DACAS) software in the TAK environment.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates at least six months recent experience (within last five years) in DACAS development in the TAK environment, developing solutions for at least one of the networks listed in SE&I Section L Attachment 3 SE&I Primary DACAS Tactical Data Networks, and implementing Joint Interoperability standards. This measure will be determinated on an acceptable/unacceptable bassis per the table below. If the proposal is rated as acceptable for this measure, the proposal will proceed for evaluation. If the proposal is rated as unacceptable, the proposal will be be eliminated from consideration for award and no further evaluation will be done.

Table 2A. Evaluation Gate Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating

Rating Description

Acceptable The offeror’s proposal demonstrates at least six months of recent experience (within the last five years) in DACAS development in the TAK environment, developing solutions for at least one of the entworks listed in the SE&I Section L Attachment 3 SE&I Primary DACAS Tactical Data Networks, and implementiong Joint Interoperablility standards.

Unacceptable The offeror’s proposal demonstrates none or less than six months of recent experience (within the last five years) in DACAS development in the TAK environment, developing solutions for at least one of the entworks listed in the SE&I Section L Attachment 3 SE&I Primary DACAS Tactical Data Networks, and implementiong Joint Interoperablility standards.

2.0.2 Evaluation Factors

The following evaluation factor and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Technical/Technical Risk

Subfactor 1: Sample SWAK Task Subfactor 2: Understanding of the TAK environment/stakeholders Subfactor 3: Staffing – Key Personnel Subfactor 4: Software Development Process Subfactor 5: Developing Capabilities for Dismounted Operations Subfactor 6: Small Business Participation

Factor 2: Cost/Price

Factor 3: Past Performance

2.1 Relative Importance

The source selection decision will be a Best Value Tradeoff based on an analysis of the significance of the evaluated differences in the non-cost/price factors/subfactors (between Offerors) and tradeoff of those differences in the technical/technical risk factors/subfactors and past performance with the cost/price factor. The decision may not result in award to the highest rated Offeror in the technical/technical risk factors/sub-factors and past performance or to the lowest cost/priced proposal, but involves subjectivity and judgement in assessing the strengths and weaknesses involved in the evaluated differences in the proposals in relation to price differences. The technical factor/sub-factors, are equally important as past performance. All evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost/price.

2.2 Technical Factor

2.2.1 The Technical evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings are of approximately equal weight. Within the Technical Factor, subfactors 1 through 5 are more important than subfactor 6.

In arriving at a Best Value Subjective Tradeoff decision, the Government reserves the right to assign a strength to proposals to subfactors 2 through 5 in accordance with the rating table 2C below.

2.2.2 Technical Risk Rating

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

Each technical subfactors 1-5 will receive one of the technical risk ratings in Table 2B - Technical Risk Rating, below. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. For any weakness identified by the Offeror, the evaluation shall also address the Offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

Table 2B. Technical Risk Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

2.2.3 Technical Rating

The technical rating provides an assessment of the quality of the Offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. For subfactor 1 the Offeror will be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis in accordance with Table 2D - Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating below. For subfactors 2 through 5 the Offeror will receive one of the color ratings in Table 2C – Technical Rating below. The color rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. In arriving at a technical rating, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration, i.e., assign a strength. A strength is defined as an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance in excess of minimum PWS requirements in a way that will be beneficial to the Government. For subfactor 6, the Offeror will receive one of the color ratings in Table 2E – Small Business Rating below. Subfactor ratings shall not roll up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

Table 2C. Technical Rating

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.

Table 2D. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Table 2E. Small Business Rating

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 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.

2.2.4 Proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Sample SWAK Task

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach to developing and delivering SWAK capability releases.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the Offeror provides detailed narrative showing a comprehensive approach to developing body-worn kit updates, to include software development of two ATAK plugins and replacement of an existing NSA-certified type one (crypto) DACAS radio with an equivalent radio within 6 months. (PWS 3.2)

Subfactor 2: Understanding of the TAK environment/stakeholders

Description: Demonstrate understanding of the Tactical Assault Kit (TAK) Enterprise environment stakeholders, roles and responsibility (PWS 3.1.1.2., 3.2.1, 3.3.1)

Measure of Merit: The Offeror shall provide a narrative describing the key processes, procedures and interaction with members of the TAK Product Center. The Offeror shall also be able to describe the TAK variants, development products/tools, development procedures and necessary steps to deliver releasable MIL-TAK products to the Government.

Subfactor 3: Staffing – Key Personnel

Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed approach to staffing key positions to support SWAK Integration, Software development requirements, training and cyber-security.

Measure of Merit 1: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a qualified workforce to meet the Technical Integration Lead requirements of the SE&I contract.

(PWS 3.1.1.1)

Measure of Merit 2: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a qualified workforce to meet the Software Developer Lead requirements of the SE&I contract.

(PWS 3.1.1.2)

Measure of Merit 3: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a qualified workforce to meet the Training Staff requirements of the SE&I contract. (PWS 3.1.1.3;

3.10.4)

Measure of Merit 4: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a qualified workforce to meet the Cyber-Security Lead requirements of the SE&I contract. (PWS 3.1.1.4)

Subfactor 4: Software Development Process

Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror's software processes to accomplish required tasks IAW PWS paragraphs 3.3.1 through 3.3.3 and 3.4.1.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound approach to developing SWAK software in all of the criteria, A-C, below:

A. Software Development - relevant to the primary Special Warfare Mission Areas (Fires, Personnel Recovery, Assault Zones, Special Reconnaissance and Enabling Capabilities)

B. TAK Enterprise software development/testing tools C. Continuous Integration/Continuous Delivery (CI/CD) DevSecOps pipeline

Subfactor 5: Developing Capabilities for Dismounted Operations

Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror's understanding of the constraints and unique requirements associated with body-worn equipment in a dismounted operating environment.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound approach to assessing and implementing potential improvements to SWAK within the constraints of body-worn equipment and dismounted operating environments. (PWS paragraph 3.4.2)

Subfactor 6: Small Business Participation

Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror's ability to meet small business participation requirements.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the Offeror provides a sound and comprehensive to utilization of small businesses, as documented in the Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD). An Offeror’s SBPCD will be considered to indicate a thorough approach when satisfying the criteria above and committing to the utilization of small business of at least 15% and up to and including 30% of the proposed value of all Task Orders in the aggregate. An Offeror will be considered to indicate an exceptional approach when satisfying the criteria above and committing to the utilization of small business in excess of 30% of the proposed value of the total aggregate Task Order value.

2.3 Cost or Price Factor

Individual components of Cost/Price proposals will be evaluated for Total evaluated Price, Realism, Reasonableness and Unbalanced pricing. The results of the Cost/Price evaluations will be provided to the Source Selection Authority for consideration in making the best value decision. The Offeror is solely responsible for establishing the credibility of their Cost/Price proposal.

2.3.1 Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data

Information Other than Cost or Pricing Data may will be evaluated to determine cost realism and reasonableness of the Offeror’s cost/price. The Government anticipates adequate price competition for this acquisition, however, in the circumstance that it does not obtain adequate price competition to determine price fair and reasonable, the Government may request Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data IAW FAR 15.403-3.

2.3.2 Cost Realism

The Government will perform a Cost Realism analysis as outlined in FAR 15.404-1(d). A Government Estimate of Most Probable Cost (GEMPC) analysis, as determined by the Cost Realism Assessment (CRA), will be performed in the realism evaluation. The Government evaluation of cost realism will consider the extent to which proposed costs indicate a clear understanding of solicitation requirements, and determine whether they reflect a sound approach to satisfying those requirements and whether the proposed labor escalation and indirect factors are realistic.

A significant difference between the Offeror’s proposed Cost and the GEMPC will be considered an indicator that the Offeror does not understand the requirement and will be reflected in the Government’s realism analysis. The GEMPC, will be used for the purpose of evaluation to determine the best value proposal. An offer may be rejected if the Contracitng Officer determines the lack of cost realism.

2.3.3 Reasonableness

In accordance with FAR 31.201-3, a cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

Normally, reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1. IAW FAR 15.403-1(b) the Government requires the submission of Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data to the extent necessary to support a determination of reasonableness.

The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable, and therefore not eligible for award, if prices are found to not be reasonable.

2.3.4 Unbalanced Pricing:

The Government shall also analyze Offerors’ proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices and separately priced line items and quantity bands.

(1) Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line item is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques.

(2) If unbalanced pricing exist, the contracting officer shall follow the steps in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g)(2).

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

2.3.5 Total Evaluated Price: The Government will calculate the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for each Offeror using the Cost/Price inputs provided by each respective Offeror in Section L, Attachment 5 - Pricing Matrix) as described below. The Government will use the TEP for evaluation purposes only. The TEP is the sum of the following:

2.3.5.1 Task Order 1: (SWAK v3.1 - Est Fielding Nov 2022)

• CLINs A001-A003 - Integrate ATAK v4.8

• CLINs A001-A003 - ARC4 HUD Tool BADL/Fires Tool integration

• CLINs A001-A003 - GPS Denied Nav "Final"

• CLINs A001-A003 - WinSWAK early dev beta (easy transition from dismounted to mounted Ops)

• CLINs A001-A003, A004-A006 - Procure and begin integration of AR/Vis Aug HW into the kit

• CLINs A001-A003, A004-A006, A016-A018 - Potential addition of S22TE (if this is the next TE version), cyber testing as needed

• CLINs A001-A003, A010-A012 - Update training materials

• CLINs A001-A003 - Prepare cyber testing and documentation for updated cyber boundary

• CLINs A001-A003, A013-A015 - Support DT/OT and interoperability testing as required

2.3.5.2 Task Order 2: (SWAK v3.2 - Est Fielding Feb 2023)

• CLINs A001-A003 - Integrate ATAK v4.10 (these versions are just projections at this point)

• CLINs A001-A003 - Begin productization of VITO (Video Identification and Tracking of Objects)

• CLINS A010-A012, A023 - S22TE (or whatever next gen EUD) added to ATO and ready for fielding

• CLINs A001-A003, A013-A015 - WinSWAK MVP

• CLINs A001-A003, A004-A006 - Airfield Lights integration into ATAK/SWAK

• CLINs A001-A003, A004-A006 - M-Code capable GPS receiver integration

• CLINs A001-A003, A004-A006 - Early dev on Lightning Bolt Hand Held (LBHH) integration with SWAK - new BFT-equipped radio

• CLINs A001-A003, A010-A012 - Update training materials

• CLINs A001-A003 - Prepare cyber testing and documentation for updated cyber boundary

• CLINs A001-A003, A013-A015 - Support DT/OT and interoperability testing as required

2.3.5.3 Task Order 3: (SWAK v4.0 - Est Fielding May 2023)

• CLINs A001-A003 - Integrate ATAK v5.0

• CLINs A001-A003 - WinSWAK "Final" operating on the TAKX platform (when TAKX subsumes WinTAK)

• CLINs A001-A003, A004-A006, A010-A012, A013-A015 - Potential fielding of "next-gen" kit utilizing matured wireless technologies with a "wired-less" mindset (TacHUB + SPoX + possibly Pison/Trace capes)

• CLINs A001-A003, A013-A015 - VITO "Final"

• CLINs A001-A003 - Power/App Management MVP

• CLINs A001-A003, A004-A006 - sUAS Control early dev/integration

• CLINs A001-A003, A010-A012 - Update training materials

• CLINs A010-012, A013-015 - Conduct Regional/Unit/Train-the-trainer as required

• CLINs A001-A003 - Prepare cyber testing and documentation for updated cyber boundary

• CLINs A001-A003, A013-A015 - Support DT/OT and interoperability testing as required

2.3.5.4 Task Order 4: (SWAK v4.1 - Est Fielding Sep 2023)

• CLINs A001-A003 - Integrate/improve on ATAK v5.X

• CLINs A001-A003, A013-A015 - sUAS Control MVP

• CLINs A001-A003 - Power/App Management "Final" if ready

• CLINs A001-A003, A010-A012 - Update training materials

• CLINs A001-A003 - Prepare cyber testing and documentation for updated cyber boundary

• CLINs A001-A003, A013-A015 - Support DT/OT and interoperability testing as required

2.3.5.5 Task Order 5: Offerors shall insert the proposed cost of providing 1 year of training IAW PWS section 3.10, for the following scenario:

CONUS NET training (PWS 3.10.1.1): 8 per quarter; 40 students

OCONUS NET training (PWS 3.10.1.1): 8 per quarter; 40 students

CONUS Refresher training (PWS 3.10.2): 8 per quarter; 40 students

OCONUS Refresher training (PWS 3.10.2): 8 per quarter; 40 students

CONUS JIT training (PWS 3.10.3): 8 per quarter; 40 students

OCONUS JIT training (PWS 3.10.3): 8 per quarter; 40 students

Applicable CLINS: 10-12

2.3.5.6 Task Order 6: Studies and Analysis: The government shall establish a cost for this task order due to the uncertainty of future study tasks.

Applicable CLINS: 16-18

2.3.5.7 Task Order 7: FMS: The government shall establish a cost for this task order due to the uncertainty of future FMS requirements

Applicable CLINS: 21

2.3.5.8 Task Order 8: Support to TACP Innovation Cells: Offerors shall enter the proposed cost of support to TACP Innovation Cells for 1 year IAW PWS paragraph 3.13.4.

Applicable CLINS: 22

2.3.5.9 Task Order 9: Field Service representatives (FSRs): Offerors shall enter the proposed cost to provide FSR support for 1 year, IAW PWS paragraph 3.13.3.

Applicable CLINS: 10-12

2.3.5.10 Task Order 10: Help Desk Support: Offeror insert proposed cost of help desk support for 1 year, IAW PWS paragraph 3.13.2.

Applicable CLINS: 10-12

2.4. Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

2.4.1 Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2E – Performance Confidence Ratings, below.

Table 2E. Performance Confidence Ratings

Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

2.4.2 Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services outlined in the solicitation requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price factor. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

2.4.2.1 Recency Assessment

An evaluation of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Additionally, the effort must have at least six months of performance elapsed by the date proposals are due under this solicitation. Past performance information that does not meet this condition will not be evaluated, further.

2.4.2.2 Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price factor. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to successful development of TAK-based software and having access to the baseline TAK product source

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

code, as given by the TAK Product Center, supporting SW operational needs. Relevant experience includes but is not limited to: development of capabilities for support of 3 primary DACAS networks (e.g., L16/SADL/VMF), integration of hand-held/carried military radios (see PWS paragraph 3.1.3) with an ATAK-based body-worn kit, providing supporting engineering and documentation to achieve an Authority to Operate for a body-worn kit, successful implementation of capability IAW Joint Interoperability standards (ref. section 1. Tactical Data Network Relevant Standards of the SRD extract) as evidenced by service-level Interoperability Test Certifications (e.g., AFSIT, AIC, etc.) and JITC test results, and implementing modern software development methods to allow rapid release of incremental capability to dismounted users. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor or teaming partner. The past performance information forms (PIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts (DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2F – Relevancy Ratings):

Table 2F. Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the 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.

2.4.2.3 Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality (how well the offeror performed on the contracts) of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price Factor; however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available.

Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(v), the assessment will consider the extent to which the Offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns, monetary targets for SDB participation, and notifications submitted under FAR 52.219-25, Small Disadvantaged Business Participation Program—Disadvantaged Status and Reporting. Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the Offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts.

Table 2G. Performance Quality Ratings

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description Blue Exceptional During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

Purple Very Good During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered. Contractor took timely corrective action.

Green Satisfactory During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

Yellow Marginal During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

Red Unsatisfactory During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fail) to meet most contract requirements.

Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

White Not Applicable Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect.

M003 (FAR 9.106) 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. If conducted, the results will be assessed under the applicable factors/subfactors and will be used to validate and confirm the Offeror's written proposal.

M004 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 award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale in accordance with Section L, paragraph 4.5.2