SEI - Section M.pdf

FA8629-22-R-5031

Section M

6 April 2022

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

This is a best value tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, dated 31 March 2016, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at the United States Government Acquisition website, http://acquisition.gov.

The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk, Past Performance and Cost/Price. The Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract, and the and first IDIQ Task Order for the Post-Award Conference, 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 past performance 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 Board (SSEB) and the Source Selection Authority 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 evaluation factor as specified in FAR 52.245-9 and as shown in Section L, Attachment 5 Cost Format. See Section L paragraph 4.5.1.7.2 for GFP instructions.

1.3 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

A contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR Subpart 9.1, as supplemented, and whose proposal meets all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the solicitation requirements may result in the Offeror being determined 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 and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

1.4 Rejection of Offers

The Government may reject any proposal from this competition by determining it to be grossly deficient prior to evaluating the proposal against the Evaluation Factors if an initial assessment shows the proposal fails to address requirements of the Request For Proposals (RFP), fails to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory requirements of the RFP, or does not represent a reasonable initial effort by the Offeror to address the requirements of the RFP.

The evaluation criteria includes a Gate at Section M paragraph 2.0.1. The Government will reject a proposal at this Gate without reviewing or performing an initial evaluation on the rest of the proposal if the Gate criteria is not met.

1.5 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. A deficiency is 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 judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of a proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the Competitive Range Determination.

1.6 Competitive Range Determination

A competitive range of the most highly rated proposals will be established IAW FAR 15.306(c) in the event discussions with Offerors are to be conducted. During the evaluation process, one or more competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition that are not among the most highly rated proposals at the time of the determination.

If the CO 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 CO, with the concurrence of the SSA, 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 at the outset for purposes of efficiency, based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), or prior to issuance of the final proposal revision (FPR) request. If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range, they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505 or 15.506.

1.7 Discussions

The Offeror is reminded that the Government intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion. 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.

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 of recent experience on a single development effort (within last five years) in DACAS software 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 rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis per the table below. If the Evaluation Gate is rated as Acceptable, the proposal will proceed for evaluation. NOTE: If the Evaluation Gate is rated as Unacceptable, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award and no further evaluation will be conducted.

Table 2A. Evaluation Gate Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

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 Evaluation Gate is a pass/fail gate used to determine whether an Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated.

Among proposals which pass the Evaluation Gate, the relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Factor 1 (Technical) is equally important as Factor 2 (Past Performance); within Factor 1 (Technical), the Technical rating and the Technical Risk rating are of equal importance. IAW FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. However, price will contribute substantially to the source selection decision.

2.2 Technical Factor

2.2.1 Technical Evaluation

The Technical evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical Risk Rating and the Technical Rating.

2.2.2 Technical Risk Rating

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

Technical subfactors 1-5 will each 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 proposal will be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis in accordance with Table 2D - Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating below. For subfactors 2 through 5 the proposal 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 for subfactors 2 through 5, 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 or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance. 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

Adjectival

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 Technical Subfactors

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. (PWS 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9)

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the Offeror provides detailed narrative showing a sound 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: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s 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: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound understanding of the TAK environment, stakeholders, roles and responsibilities.

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.

(PWS 3.1.1, 3.7, 3.10.4)

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, 3.7)

Subfactor 4: Software Development Process Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror's software processes to accomplish required tasks IAW PWS paragraphs 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, and 3.9.

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 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 4.2.5.6.1, Section L and committing to the utilization of small business of at least 15% and up to and including 20% 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 4.2.5.6.1, Section L and committing to the utilization of small business over 20% 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 information required by paragraph 4.2.5.6.1, Section L 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

The Offerors’ Cost/Price Volume(s) will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 in order to determine if it is reasonable and balanced. For the Cost Type CLINs, the Offerors’ Cost/Price Volume(s) will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 in order to determine if it is realistic.

Individual components of Cost/Price proposals will be evaluated for Completeness, 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. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

2.3.1 Completeness

The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L of the solicitation. If not complete and in compliance, the proposal may make the Offeror’s proposal ineligible for award.

2.3.2 Cost Realism

A Cost Realism analysis will be performed as outlined in FAR 15.404-1(d). The Government will perform a Cost Realism analysis. 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, not the Contractor’s proposed cost, will be used for the purpose of evaluation to determine the best value proposal. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of cost realism.

2.3.3 Reasonableness

The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 in order to determine if it is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

2.3.4 Unbalanced Pricing

The Government will conduct an analysis for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g).

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable Total Evaluated Price (TEP), a proposed line item is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Offerors are cautioned that a proposal may be rejected if unbalanced pricing exists and the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. The burden of proof for demonstrating balance pricing rests with the Offeror.

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 evaluation purposes only.

The TEP is the sum of the following:

1. CPFF CLIN Series X001 AFSOC DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND INTEGRATION Base Period to Opt Yr. 5 will be evaluated at the GEMPC plus the proposed fixed fee amount.

2. CPFF CLIN Series X002 GA DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND INTEGRATION Base Period to Opt Yr. 5 will be evaluated at the GEMPC plus the proposed fixed fee amount.

3. CPFF CLIN Series X003 TACP DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND INTEGRATION Base Period to Opt Yr. 5 will be evaluated at the GEMPC plus the proposed fixed fee amount.

4. CR CLIN Series X004 AFSOC OTHER DIRECT CRS (ODC) Base Period to Opt Yr5 will be evaluated at the Government-established value of $1,250,000 respectively.

5. CR CLIN Series X005 GA OTHER DIRECT CRS (ODC) Base Period to Opt Yr. 5 will be evaluated at the Government-established value of $500,000 respectively.

6. CR CLIN Series X006 TACP OTHER DIRECT CRS (ODC) Base Period to Opt Yr. 5 will be evaluated at the Government-established value of $1,250,000 respectively.

7. NSP CLIN X007 AFSOC DATA Base Period to Opt Yr. 5. These CLINs will not be evaluated.

8. NSP CLIN X008 GA DATA Base Period to Opt Yr. 5. These CLINs will not be evaluated.

9. NSP CLIN X009 TACP DATA Base Period to Opt Yr. 5. These CLINs will not be evaluated.

10. CPFF CLIN Series X010 AFSOC TRAINING Base Period to Opt Yr. 5 will be evaluated at the GEMPC plus the proposed fixed fee amount.

11. CPFF CLIN Series X011 GA TRAINING Base Period to Opt Yr. 5 will be evaluated at the GEMPC plus the proposed fixed fee amount.

12. CPFF CLIN Series X012 TACP TRAINING Base Period to Opt Yr. will be evaluated at the GEMPC plus the proposed fixed fee amount.

13. FFP CLIN Series X013 AFSOC FIELD SERVICES REPRESENTATIVES Base Period to Opt Yr. 5 will be evaluated at its proposed price.

14. FFP CLIN Series X014 GA FIELD SERVICES REPRESENTATIVES Base Period to Opt Yr. 5 will be evaluated at its proposed price.

15. FFP CLIN Series X015 TACP FIELD SERVICES REPRESENTATIVES Base Period to Opt Yr.

5 will be evaluated at its proposed price.

16. CR CLIN Series X016 AFSOC TRAVEL Base Period to Opt Yr. 5 will be evaluated at the Government-established value of $500,000 respectively.

17. CR CLIN Series X017 GA TRAVEL Base Period to Opt Yr. 5 will be evaluated at the Government-established value of $1,750,000 respectively.

18. CR CLIN Series X018 TACP TRAVEL Base Period to Opt Yr. 5 will be evaluated at the Government-established value of $1,750,000 respectively.

19. FFP CLIN Series X019 AFSOC STUDIES, & ANALYSES Base Period to Opt Yr. 5 will be evaluated at the Government-established value of $1,125,000 respectively. These are Government estimate values and are not the final contracted values.

20. FFP CLIN Series X020 GA STUDIES, & ANALYSES Base Period to Opt Yr. 5 will be evaluated at the Government-established value of $250,000 respectively. These are Government estimate values and are not the final contracted values.

21. FFP CLIN Series X021 TACP STUDIES, & ANALYSES Base Period to Opt Yr. 5 will be evaluated at the Government-established value of $1,125,000 respectively. These are Government estimate values and are not the final contracted values.

22. CPFF CLIN Series X022 FOREIGN MILITARY SALES Base Period to Opt Yr. 5 will be evaluated at the Government-established value of $300,000 respectively, plus FCCOM, plus the proposed fixed fee amount.

23. FFP CLIN Series X023 SUPPORT TO TACP INNOVATION CELLS Base Period to Opt Yr. 5 will be evaluated at its proposed price.

24. FFP CLIN Series X024 EUD PROCUREMENT Base Period to Opt Yr. 5 will be evaluated at the Government-established value of $45,000,000 respectively. These are Government estimate values and are not the final contracted values.

25. FFP CLIN Series 0025 POST AWARD CONFERENCE Base Period has a fixed price of $2,500 and will be awarded as the first task order.

26. If any Government-owned facilities, GFE/P/I and Government support is proposed and accepted by the Government above, as is identified in the RFP, the Government computed equivalent value will be added to the TEP.

Evaluation of Options: The Base Period and Options will be evaluated as part of the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). All options under the contract will be evaluated as indicated above;

however, the evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

2.3.6 Government-Owned Facilities, Government Furnished

Equipment/Property/Information (GFE/P/I), and Government Support The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an Offeror’s proposed use of Government-Owned Facilities, GFE/P/I, and Government Support that is not included in the list being provided by the Government in Attachment 2. This will be accomplished by assessing the equivalent value (see FAR 45.2) of those resources as part of the offer. Any adjustments made resulting in the use of Government-Owned Facilities, GFE/P/I/S/S, and Government Support will be captured in the TEP.

The Government may reject any Offeror proposed Government-Owned Facilities, GFE/P/I, and Government Support that is evaluated as unavailable. If Offeror’s proposal relies on Government-Owned Facilities, GFE/P/I, and Government Support, beyond that in the list provided by the Government in Attachment 2, that is unavailable, the proposal may be evaluated as deficient.

2.3.7 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award.

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.

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.

Neutral Confidence 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. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

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 Volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, CPARS (https://cpars.gov/), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ);

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 factor. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Cost 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 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 Questionnaire (PPQ) 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

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.

2.4.2.4 Assigning Ratings

As a result of the Performance Relevancy and Performance Quality Assessments, Offerors will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment rating. Although the Past Performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors, the resulting Performance Confidence Assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant Past Performance or for whom information on Past Performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on Past Performance and, as a result, will receive a Neutral Confidence rating for the Past Performance Factor. A strong record of relevant Past Performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a Neutral Confidence rating.

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