TEAMS-Next Safety Sec M 29 May 20 FINAL.pdf

Approved for Public Release 20-MDA-10497 (29 May 20)

HQ0858-20-R-0003

TEAMS-Next Safety

Section M Evaluation Factors for Award

29 May 2020

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATING METHODOLOGY/DEFINITIONS

4.0 FACTOR 1: MISSION CAPABILITY

5.0 FACTOR 2: IMCP

6.0 FACTOR 3: OCI MANAGEMENT PLAN

7.0 FACTOR 4: COST AND PRICE

20-MDA-10497 (29 May 20)

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 shall 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 DoD Source Selection Procedures, and MDA Manual 5013.06-M, Source Selection Procedures. To be eligible 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 conditions; 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 IAW FAR 52.215-1 (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 Volume).

2.3 Competitive Range

If discussions are required, a competitive range determination will be utilized in accordance with 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 in accordance with FAR 15.503, whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with 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 six (6) subfactors: Safety Risk Acceptance Package Development and Coordination (MCS1), Safety Requirements Tailoring Process Support (MCS2), Program Safety Documentation Review (MCS3), Test Event Safety Oversight (MCS4), Occupational Safety & Health Program (MCS5) and Human Capital Management (MCS6). All Mission Capability subfactors are of equal relative 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 Information Management and Control Plan (IMCP) factor and Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Management Plan factor will be evaluated as either Acceptable or Unacceptable. Any proposal with an Unacceptable 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 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 in electronic format).

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 Safety 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

20-MDA-10497 (29 May 20) 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).

To be eligible to receive an award, the Offeror’s proposal must comply with Department of Defense (DoD) Class Deviation 2020-O0008, Revision 1 to FAR Clause 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting proposed in Volume II Executive Summary Tab 3.

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): Safety Risk Acceptance Package Development and Coordination Mission Capability Subfactor 2 (MCS2): Safety Requirements Tailoring Process Support Mission Capability Subfactor 3 (MCS3): Program Safety Documentation Review Mission Capability Subfactor 4 (MCS4): Test Event Safety Oversight Mission Capability Subfactor 5 (MCS5): Occupational Safety & Health Program Mission Capability Subfactor 6 (MCS6): Human Capital Management Factor 4: Cost and Price

The Factor 1 Mission Capability subfactors (MCS1, MCS2, MCS3, MCS4, MCS5, and MCS6) 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: IMCP Factor 3: OCI Management Plan

Factor 2 will be evaluated on an “Acceptable/Unacceptable” basis using the ratings at Table M-

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

20-MDA-10497 (29 May 20)

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.

20-MDA-10497 (29 May 20)

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. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

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.

20-MDA-10497 (29 May 20)

4.1 Subfactor MCS1: Safety Risk Acceptance Package Development and Coordination

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s capability based on its approach to, and understanding of the following MCS1 Elements, to include requisite experiences to accomplish the mission tasks:

MCS1 Element #1: Evaluating MDA system developer safety documentation and identifying serious or high safety risks that require formal government acceptance (DoD MIL STD 882C or E); evaluating interoperability of communication of multiple missile defense systems to identify safety risks caused by the interaction of multiple systems; and ensuring all credible safety hazards and risks throughout the program lifecycle are correctly identified and assessed, and that proposed mitigations are sufficient to reduce risks to a level acceptable to the government.

MCS1 Element #2: Developing formal safety risk acceptance memoranda and briefing packages to convey critical information to designated MDA safety risk acceptance authority; process for preparing professional quality safety risk assessments; and coordinating approval from the appropriate risk acceptance authority and other key stakeholders such as Range/host installation Safety organizations.

4.2 Subfactor MCS2: Safety Requirements Tailoring Process Support

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s capability based on its approach to, and understanding of, the following MCS2 Elements, to include requisite experiences to accomplish the mission tasks:

MCS2 Element #1: Evaluating system-developer-proposed tailoring of Range Safety requirements with consideration given to meeting the intent of the requirement without undue cost and/or schedule burden.

MCS2 Element #2: Evaluating Engineering Change Notices for identification of potential safety problems caused by the proposed change.

4.3 Subfactor MCS3: Program Safety Documentation Review

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s capability based on its approach to, and understanding of, the following MCS3 Elements, to include requisite experiences to accomplish the mission tasks:

MCS3 Element #1: Evaluating MDA system developer documentation to ensure all applicable safety policies and regulations have been properly addressed.

MCS3 Element #2: Evaluating safety documentation provided by program offices to ensure safety risk assessments are complete and accurate before submitting to leadership for safety risk acceptance to ensure all applicable safety policies and regulations have been properly addressed, and documentation is complete and accurate.

20-MDA-10497 (29 May 20)

4.4 Subfactor MCS4: Test Event Safety Oversight

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s capability based on its approach to, and understanding of, the following MSC4 Elements, to include requisite experiences to accomplish the mission tasks:

MCS4 Element #1: Reviewing test procedures and identifying non-compliances with applicable safety policies and regulations; reviewing and providing comments and/or recommendation for government approval of hazardous and safety critical procedures.

MCS4 Element #2: Providing safety oversight of hazardous and safety critical integration and test operations in the field.

MCS4 Element #3: Ensuring all applicable safety policies and hazard mitigations are properly implemented and that waivers/deviations are reviewed and approved by the appropriate authority.

4.5 Subfactor MCS5: Occupational Safety & Health Program

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s capability based on its approach to, and understanding of, the following MCS5 Element, to include requisite experiences to accomplish the mission tasks:

MCS5 Element #1: Developing, implementing and executing effective MDA safety and occupational health (SOH) programs to include support for agency policies and procedures.

4.6 Subfactor MCS6: Human Capital Management

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Human Capital Management capability based on its approach to, and understanding of, the following MCS6 Elements:

MCS6 Element #1: Recruit 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 4.3.1.7). Addressing processes and timelines for backfilling critical billets and approach to quickly increase staffing to support potential new mission areas.

MCS6 Element #2: Retain 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.

MCS6 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)

20-MDA-10497 (29 May 20)

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

MCS6 Element #4: Key Staff Position defined as Contract Program Manager (CPM). The Government will evaluate the resume for the CPM to ensure it meets all the qualifications at time of proposal submission from SOW 4.3.1.7 for the CPM, includes a current Top Secret security clearance, and includes a bilaterally-signed employment agreement that stipulates employment beginning on or before the first day of contract period of performance for this effort.

Note, prior to contract award, Offeror will be required to verify to the Government the availability of proposed key persons at beginning of contract period of performance; this is a condition for award.

5.0 FACTOR 2: IMCP

The Government will evaluate the overall plan(s) of each Offeror as either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. 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 14 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 demonstrates a sufficient approach to, and understanding of, the policies/procedures identified in paragraphs 5.0 a-h above.

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

6.0 FACTOR 3: 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 Contractor’s OCI Management approach to include responsibility for overall management, oversight, and enforcement.

20-MDA-10497 (29 May 20)

b) The plan to maintain and self-certify an OCI-free environment during performance of the contract by ensuring that the Prime contractor 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 Prime contractor 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 Prime contractor and subcontractors at all tiers, with emphasis on consequences for failing to comply with an OCI-free policy.

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.

If an Offeror fails to demonstrate an effective approach in each of the above areas (a-f), it will be assigned an “Unacceptable” rating for OCI Management Plan. An Offeror that receives an “Unacceptable” rating for OCI Management Plan is not eligible for award.

7.0 FACTOR 4: COST AND PRICE

The Cost and 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, 1st one-year option, 2nd one-year option, Option CLIN 0001 “Emergent Requirements” and the 6 month option to extend services.

7.1 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 in accordance with FAR 52.222-46(d).

7.2 Affordability

An affordable proposal does not force the Government to make unacceptable budget trade-offs.

Any unaffordable proposal, including an otherwise superior proposal, may be eliminated from consideration for contract award by the SSA.

20-MDA-10497 (29 May 20)

7.3 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 in accordance with DFARS 252.215-7008.

7.4 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.

7.5 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.

3. The amount of any additional costs to the Government necessary to support the

Offeror’s unique approach.