TEAMS-Next MDS Engineering Section M 9.15.20.pdf

Approved for Public Release 20-MDA-10578 (18 Sep 20)

HQ0858-20-R-0014

TEAMS-Next

Missile Defense Systems (MDS) Engineering

Section M

Evaluation Factors for Award

September 15, 2020

1.0 INTRODUCTION 3

2.0 BASIS FOR AWARD 3

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATING METHODOLOGY/DEFINITIONS 6

4.0 FACATOR 1: MISSION CAPABILITY 8

5.0 FACTOR 2: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION 10

6.0 FACTOR 3: IMCP 11

7.0 FACTOR 4: OCI MANAGEMENT PLAN 11

8.0 FACTOR 5: COST AND PRICE 12

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The Government intends to award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

This attachment will be removed upon award of the contract.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Government will evaluate the Offerors’ proposals in accordance with (IAW) the criteria specified in this section. The Government intends to award without discussions.

Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms for each factor/subfactor. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). The Government reserves the right to make an award or no award.

2.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

2.1 Best Value Tradeoff

This is a best-value tradeoff, competitive source selection conducted IAW the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 15.3, as supplemented by the Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) subpart 215.3, Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, and MDA Manual 5013.06-M, Source Selection Procedures. As a condition for award, the Offeror must be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.1, have an approved Top Secret facility security clearance (FCL) in place prior to award, meet the requirements of the solicitation, conform to the required terms and condition, and include all required certifications. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. Offerors shall submit one proposal. The proposal shall be discretely priced and fully compliant with all stated terms, conditions, and performance requirements set forth in this solicitation. Page limits and all other proposal preparation instructions in this RFP apply to the proposal. Contingent proposals are not allowed, nor will they be accepted, considered, or evaluated by the Government. Contingent proposals are defined herein as proposals that include terms or conditions that imply that performance is contingent upon any sort of provisioning from the Government that is not set forth in the

RFP.

2.2 The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal shall contain the Offeror’s best terms for cost and non-cost factors. When the Government pursues award without discussions, the Offerors may be given the opportunity IAW FAR 15.306 to clarify certain aspects of their proposals (e.g., adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical errors. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) determines them to be necessary.

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic, including contract terms and conditions, program commitments, unrealistically high or low price, or a proposal that is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of understanding/competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of all stated requirements. Further, the Government may reject any proposal that is incomplete (e.g., missing a Volume).

2.3 Competitive Range

If discussions are required, a competitive range determination will be utilized IAW FAR

15.306. If the PCO determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted (FAR 15.306(c)(2)), the PCO 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. If the PCO determines that an Offeror’s proposal shall not be included in the competitive range, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award. A written notice of the decision will be provided to the unsuccessful Offeror IAW FAR 15.503, whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505 or 15.506.

2.4 Discussions

If discussions are required, they may be conducted either orally or in writing. The scope and extent of the discussions are a matter of PCO judgment as set forth in FAR 15.306.

Responses from Offerors may be required within two business days.

Should the Government need to conduct written exchanges with Offerors, they will be in the form of an evaluation notice (EN). The specified format and page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the Offerors. The ENs may be sent electronically (i.e., via e-mail) at the discretion of the PCO. The letters forwarding the ENs to the Offerors will request an e-mail response. Offerors must submit responses by the time and date specified in the PCO letter accompanying the ENs.

2.5 The Government will select for award the most advantageous proposal representing the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of Mission Capability and Cost and Price. Mission Capability includes five (5) subfactors: MDS-level System Engineering and Integration (MCS1), MDS Subsystem-Level System Engineering and Integration (MCS2), Command and Control, Battle Management, and Communications to Integrate Across All Layers of the MDS (MCS3), MDS Modeling and Simulation (M&S) (MCS4), and Human Capital Approach (MCS5). All subfactors are of equal importance.

At the factor level, Mission Capability is significantly more important than Cost and Price.

Cost and Price will not be scored, but will be evaluated for reasonableness and realism, and will be considered as part of the integrated assessment of best value. The Small Business

Participation factor, Information Management and Control Plan (IMCP) factor, and Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Management Plan factor will each be evaluated as either Acceptable or Unacceptable. Any proposal with an Unacceptable Small Business Participation, IMCP, or OCI Management Plan factor rating is not eligible for award.

2.6 Award may be made to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror where the Source Selection

Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical superiority of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price differential. The selection decision will document tradeoffs between Mission Capability and Cost and Price for offers with an “Acceptable” rating for Small Business Participation, IMCP, and OCI Management Plan.

2.7 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 and subfactors to be eligible for award. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation, and instructions contained in Section L, may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award; this includes incomplete proposal submission (e.g., missing Volumes).

2.8 Contracting Officer’s Responsibility Determination

Prior to awarding a contract, the PCO must perform a responsibility determination for the selected contractor. The standards of contractor responsibility and the requirement for the PCO to make and document a responsibility determination are set forth in FAR 9.104 and

9.105. To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must:

a) Have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them.

b) Be able to comply with the required or proposed delivery or performance schedule, taking into consideration all existing commercial and governmental business commitments.

c) Have a satisfactory performance record. A prospective contractor shall not be determined responsible or non-responsible solely on the basis of a lack of relevant performance history, except as provided in FAR 9.104-2.

d) Have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics.

e) Have the necessary organization, experience, accounting and operational controls, and technical skills, or the ability to obtain them (including, as appropriate, such elements as production control procedures, property control systems, quality assurance measures, and safety precautions applicable to materials to be produced or services to be performed by the prospective contractor and subcontractors).

f) Have the necessary production, construction, and technical equipment and facilities, or the ability to obtain them

g) Be otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations.

Per FAR 9.504(e), the PCO shall award the contract to the apparent successful Offeror unless a conflict of interest is determined to exist that cannot be avoided or mitigated. The PCO reserves the right to reject proposals from Offerors which do not adequately avoid or mitigate all OCIs or are inconsistent with the identified MDS Engineering OCI restrictions.

If an OCI is not adequately resolved, the PCO reserves the right to notify the Offeror and allow the Offeror a reasonable opportunity to respond before making an award decision.

The PCO also reserves the right to obtain an OCI waiver and make an award when in the best interests of the United States. If the likely successful Offeror is rejected due to OCI and the PCO elects to not pursue a waiver, the Government reserves the right to award to the best value of remaining Offerors that are not rejected due to OCI. Notices to Offerors of OCIs and their responses thereto are not negotiations or discussions as those terms are used in FAR 15.306(d).

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATING METHODOLOGY/DEFINITIONS

The Government will conduct an in-depth review of each proposal against the factors and subfactors established in the solicitation, and assign evaluations ratings (FAR 15.305). The ratings tables below will be used.

TABLE M-1: Evaluation Factors/Subfactors (Trade-off)

Evaluation Factors Factor 1: Mission Capability

Mission Capability Subfactor 1 (MCS1): MDS-Level System Engineering and Integration Mission Capability Subfactor 2 (MCS2): MDS Subsystem-Level System Engineering and Integration Mission Capability Subfactor 3 (MCS3): Command and Control, Battle Management, and Communications to

Integrate Across All Layers of the MDS Mission Capability Subfactor 4 (MCS4): MDS Modeling and Simulation (M&S)

Mission Capability Subfactor 5 (MCS5): Human Capital Approach Factor 5: Cost and Price

The Factor 1 Mission Capability subfactors (MCS1 through MCS5) will be evaluated using the definitions at Table M-3 and the ratings at Table M-4. The combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in Table M-4 in conjunction with the risk descriptions set forth in Table M-5.

TABLE M-2: Acceptable/Unacceptable Factor Acceptable/Unacceptable Factors Factor 2: Small Business Participation Factor 3: IMCP Factor 4: OCI Management Plan

Factor 2, 3, and 4 will be evaluated on an “Acceptable/Unacceptable” basis using the ratings at Table M-6.

TABLE M-3: Evaluation Definitions Discriminator Definition

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.

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

Significant Weakness

A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful 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.

TABLE M-4: Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

TABLE M-5. Technical Risk Rating Method

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.

TABLE M-6: Small Business, IMCP and OCI Management Plan Acceptable/Unacceptable

Definitions

Rating Definition Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

4.0 FACTOR 1: MISSION CAPABILITY

The Government will evaluate the Mission Capability approach of each Offeror. The evaluation will focus on compliance with solicitation requirements. Each subfactor within the Mission Capability factor will receive one of the combined technical/risk color ratings in Table M-4. The combined technical/risk ratings include consideration of risk, in Table M-5, in conjunction with strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies, in Table M-3, in determining technical ratings. The Government will not roll up the Mission Capability subfactor ratings into an overall factor adjectival/color rating.

Evaluation of the Offeror’s Mission Capability subfactors shall be based solely on information furnished by the Offeror. To ensure sufficient information is available, the Offeror must furnish, as part of its proposal, all descriptive material necessary for the Government to determine if the Offeror’s approach meets the requirements of the solicitation. In a case where an Offeror fails to provide enough information to determine if the proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, or weaknesses may be assessed.

4.1 Subfactor MCS1: MDS-Level System Engineering and Integration

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to, and understanding of, MDS- Level System Engineering and Integration, for a complex DoD weapon system or analogous system, which may be supported in part through examples of related experience to accomplish the mission tasks:

MCS1 Element #1: Providing technical assessments and engineering analyses;

recommendations on entrance and exit criteria; and tailoring objective evidence that supports the criteria for a system of systems.

MCS1 Element #2: Performing systems engineering functions and executing processes for development and maintenance of MDS specifications and change notices as well as conducting analyses and providing technical recommendations for trace activities to assess requirements flow-down from the system-level to the subsystem level.

MCS1 Element #3: Developing, documenting, and executing MDS performance assessments to correctly characterize the system under test, and documentation accurately describes capabilities and limitations.

4.2 Subfactor MCS2: MDS Subsystem-Level System Engineering and Integration

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to, and understanding of, MDS Subsystem-Level System Engineering and Integration, for a complex DoD weapon system or analogous system, which may be supported in part through examples of related experience, to accomplish the following elements:

MCS2 Element #1: Developing and documenting subsystem-level requirements with decomposition and traceability from System Specification including conducting requirements trade studies, analyses, and audits to ensure complete understanding of element and component capability integration; identifying potential gaps and issues; and, assigning requirements to build capabilities.

MCS2 Element #2: Developing subsystem-level test requirements, objectives, scenarios, procedures, test and management plans, and schedules; and identifying, reporting, and tracking specific test risks and alternative resolutions.

MCS2 Element #3: Providing fielding and sustainment including development of fielding plans, policies, and agreements IAW Joint Staff, Combatant Command, and Service requirements.

4.3 Subfactor MCS3: Command and Control, Battle Management, and Communications to

Integrate Across All Layers of the MDS

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to, and understanding of, Command and Control, Battle Management, and Communications to Integrate Across All Layers of the MDS, for a complex DoD weapon system or analogous system, which may be supported in part through examples of related experience, to accomplish the following elements:

MCS3 Element #1: Providing Command, Control, Communications, and Battle Management (C3BM) capability planning, development, and assessment including integrating advanced capabilities into spiral builds, C3BM capability roadmaps, and Operational Concepts (OPCONs).

MCS3 Element #2: Developing MDS and subsystem test objectives, and reviewing and assessing System Under Test (SUT) and developmental SUT objectives for impacts on defined C2BMC interfaces and interface test objectives.

MCS3 Element #3: Providing fielding, operation and sustainment engineering including system test metrics updates; C2BMC analysis, test, and operations status situational awareness summaries; and C2BMC situational awareness spot reports.

4.4 Subfactor MCS4: MDS Modeling and Simulation (M&S)

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to, and understanding of, MDS Modeling and Simulation, for a complex DoD weapon system or analogous system, which may be supported in part through examples of related experience, to accomplish the mission tasks:

MCS4 Element #1: Planning, coordinating, managing, documenting, developing, and sustaining the Agency’s M&S framework and core truth models.

MCS4 Element #2: Integration and execution of Hardware-in-the-Loop (HWIL) and digital architectures supporting Agency test programs and objectives.

4.5 Subfactor MCS5: Human Capital Approach

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to, and understanding of, the following elements:

MCS5 Element #1: Recruiting Qualified Personnel – Demonstrating the process for timely recruiting and on-boarding of personnel that meet the qualifications set forth in the SOW labor competencies (SOW 4.3.a.6)). Addressing processes and timelines for backfilling billets and providing an approach to quickly increase staffing to support potential new mission areas. “New mission areas” could be new locations to be supported, or new requirements that emerge during the life of the contract (which would be implemented via the TERP process).

MCS5 Element #2: Retaining Qualified Personnel – In concert with the compensation plan portion of the Cost/Price Volume, addressing compensation plan/benefits and other associated incentives to retain qualified personnel.

MCS5 Element #3: Problem Resolution Strategy – Problem resolution strategy addressing customer complaints in the following areas:

a) Unsatisfactory job performance at the employee level (e.g., lack of technical ability)

b) Unsatisfactory systemic performance (e.g., pervasive and continued unsatisfactory performance across an entire function)

c) Personnel misconduct issues (e.g., timecard fraud, computer misuse, improper behavior/conduct)

5.0 FACTOR 2: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

The Government will evaluate the each Offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan and rate the plan “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” as defined at Table M-6.

To receive an “Acceptable” rating in this factor, the proposed Small Business Participation

Plan shall comprehensively address the five aspects (a - e) of a Small Business Participation Plan as specified in Section L, to provide details of an approach to comply with the small business utilization statement of work requirement (SOW paragraph 5.7):

a) Methodology used to develop proposed total contract value dollar and percentage goals to meet or exceed goals established for the acquisition as specified in Table L-3.

b) Specific initiatives and tools that will be employed under the contract to enhance small business participation and strengthen the industrial base MDA relies on for Missile Defense System.

c) Small business objectives designed to increase use of qualified small businesses to enhance readiness and sustainment, to increase missile defense engagement capability and capacity to outpace evolving threats, and to leverage technologies to increase speed of delivery of new capability to address evolving missile threats.

d) The extent of small business named in the proposal, the type of business, product/service to be performed, dollar value, timeframe, and nature of commitment the small business participation planned for the base and each option period of this acquisition.

e) Process to ensure timely and accurate small business subcontract reporting via Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS), if applicable. Proper flow-down of small business requirements, process management, and performance assessments of small business participation at lower tiers.

Failure to meet the requirements of the solicitation will result in an “Unacceptable” rating.

Offerors that receive an “Unacceptable” rating for Small Business will be removed from consideration for award.

6.0 FACTOR 3: IMCP

The Government will evaluate the overall plan(s) of each Offeror as either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” as defined in Table M-06. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Information Management and Control Plan-Services (IMCP) to ensure it demonstrates an approach to, and understanding of, the policies/procedures identified below:

a) Procedures for determining the need to transmit (CUI).

b) Internal mechanisms to determine the amount of CUI deemed necessary to transmit.

c) Accountability procedures used to safeguard CUI.

d) Procedures for monitoring subcontractor compliance with DFARS 252.204-7012.

e) Procedures for reporting a cyber-incident as defined in DFARS 252.204-7012.

f) All National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 800-171 r1 families of controls for its own applicable network in its System Security Plans and POAM.

g) Controls identified in the POAM are resolved within one year after contract award, or a reasonable period of time agreed to by the Contracting Officer.

h) Controls in place to enforce flow down of DFARS 252.204-7012 and prime contractor

IMCP procedures to all applicable subcontractors and vendors.

An IMCP will be determined to be “Acceptable” if the plan meets the requirements of the solicitation identified in paragraphs 6.0 a-h above.

An Offeror that receives an “Unacceptable” rating for the IMCP is not eligible for award.

7.0 FACTOR 4: OCI MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to the management of OCI in a comprehensive OCI Management Plan. The plan will be incorporated into the contract after award and shall be updated as required during the term of the contract. The plan shall describe the approach to OCI management in the following areas:

a) A description of the organizational unit and position(s) responsible for implementing the Offeror’s OCI Management approach to include responsibility for overall management, oversight, and enforcement.

b) The plan to maintain and self-certify an OCI-compliant environment during performance of the contract by ensuring that the Offeror and subcontractors at all tiers do not support any MDA-funded contract requirements (whether via MDA contracts, or other Government agency contracts which support MDA).

c) The procedures for detecting, eliminating, and reporting OCIs at any tier, including procedures the Offeror will utilize to ensure its subcontractors at all tiers proactively identify and report conflicts.

d) The procedures for protecting Agency information that could lead to an unfair competitive advantage if disclosed; specifically, collecting disclosure agreements covering all individuals, subcontractors, and other entities with access to agency-sensitive information, and physical safeguards.

e) Promulgation of enforcement mechanisms, procedures and training to all employees of the Offeror and subcontractors at all tiers, with emphasis on consequences for non-compliance.

f) Processes for identifying and eliminating potential conflicts associated with the employment of recently separated federal Government employees (military or civilian) that may have had unequal, non-public access to TEAMS or TEAMS-Next information.

An OCI Management Plan will be determined to be “Acceptable” if the plan meets the requirements of the solicitation identified in paragraphs 6.0 a-f above.

An Offeror that receives an “Unacceptable” rating for OCI Management Plan is not eligible for award.

8.0 FACTOR 5: COST AND PRICE

The Cost/Price Factor will not receive a color rating and the Government will only evaluate the Cost/Price Factor for technically acceptable proposals. The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s price proposal using one or more of the techniques described in FAR

15.404. Information in the proposal and information from other sources such as DCAA and DCMA may be considered under the Cost and Price Factor. The evaluation will include the three-year base period and two two-year options, Option CLIN 0001 “Emergent Requirements” and the 6 month option to extend services.

8.1 Professional Employee Total Compensation

Prices that are insufficient to cover direct labor costs and benefit costs plus other burdens and fee/profit, is a failure to comply with the provisions in FAR 52.222-46(a) and will result in the proposal being rejected by the PCO IAW FAR 52.222-46(d).

8.2 Affordability

An affordable proposal does not force the Government to make unacceptable budget tradeoffs. Any unaffordable proposal, including an otherwise superior proposal, may be eliminated from consideration for contract award by the SSA.

8.3 Reasonableness

Since the Government anticipates adequate price competition, the Government will verify price reasonableness by comparison of competitively proposed prices. Therefore, Offerors are not required to submit certified cost or pricing data. If, after receipt of proposals, the PCO determines that adequate price competition does not exist, the Government may require certified cost or pricing data IAW DFARS 252.215-7008.

8.4 Cost Realism

Cost realism analysis is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each Offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed and reflect a clear understanding of the requirements.

For CPFF LOE CLINs, the result of cost realism analysis is the probable cost. The probable cost may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost that is most likely to result from the Offeror’s proposal. Probable cost will be used to determine the best value. The Government’s probable cost will result from adjustments to the proposed cost to realistic levels based on a cost realism analysis of the proposed direct and indirect rates.

8.5 Cost and Price Factor Evaluation Results

The SSEB will provide the following results of its analysis of the cost/price factor to the SSA for consideration in making the best value decision:

a) Any qualitative cost issues

b) The total evaluated price for the total contract effort. The total evaluated price will consist of the sum of the following:

1) The probable cost of all CPFF LOE CLINs plus the proposed fixed fee amounts (to include options).

2) The travel and ODC CLINs at the Government provided amount.

Additionally, if FAR 52.219-4 “Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns” is applicable, the total evaluated price will be adjusted per the clause.

The amount of any additional costs to the Government necessary to support the Offeror’s unique approach.

2.8 Contracting Officer’s Responsibility Determination