Attach 0010_DIABLO Section M Supplement_20230815.docx

Updated 15 August 2023 Section M Evaluation Factor for Award M-1 Source Selection for Development, Integration, Acquisition, Bridging to Logistics & Operations (DIABLO) Basis for Contract Award This is a best value subjective trade-off source selection conducted in accordance with FAR 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the DFARS and the AFARS. These regulations are available electronically at https://www.acquisition.gov. The Government will select the best overall Offeror, based on integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. A single contract ( may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, 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.

Evaluation The technical proposal should include all information the Offeror wants the Government to consider and evaluate regarding its company’s ability to perform all required tasks and conform to all required terms and conditions. The best value determination will be based on the stated evaluation factors.

This procurement is subject to DFARS 215.306 and therefore, the intent of the Government is to favor discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to exercise its discretion not to enter into discussions in accordance with DFARS 215.306 if it is determined that discussions are inappropriate. In the event issues pertaining to a proposed contract cannot be resolved to the KO’s satisfaction, the Government reserves the right to withdraw and cancel the solicitation. In such event, Offerors will be notified in writing. In the event a competitive range is established, and the KO 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 KO may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition.

Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award a single Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract for the DIABLO with Task Order 1 fulfilling minimum guarantee requirements under the base contract at time of award; however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all. If an award is made, the projected start date of the contract ordering period, including Task Order 1, is April 2024.

Clarifications and Communications Clarifications are limited exchanges between the government and Offerors that may occur when contract award without discussions is contemplated. The Government may, but is not required to, engage in clarifications that give Offerors an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals or to resolve minor or clerical errors before the establishment of the competitive range. These communications shall not provide an opportunity for the Offeror to revise its proposal.

Notice of Award A written notice of award or acceptance of a proposal emailed or otherwise furnished to the successful Offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party.

Evaluation Factors As described below, the evaluation will consist of two phases. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Phase One: Task Order 1 Phase Two:

Factor 1: Technical

Factor 2: Cost/Price Factor 3: Past Performance Factor 4: Small Business Participation Phase Two Factor 1 is significantly more important than Phase Two Factor 2.

Phase One: Task Order 1 Phase One will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable Technical Evaluation. Offerors that do not receive an acceptable rating on Phase One shall not proceed to Phase Two of the Evaluation and shall be eliminated from further consideration, resulting in proposals being disqualified for evaluation under Phase Two Factors 1, 2, 3 and 4. Offerors that receive an Acceptable rating for Phase One will proceed to Phase Two of the Evaluation.

Task Order 1 In order to be found technically acceptable, the Offeror shall submit a response using Attachment 0018 that meets the below criteria:

· For each system identified in Attachment 0014 - DIABLO Task Order 1 Quantities, Tab ‘DIABLO TO 1 Sensors’ the Offeror submits proof of software and depot repair/overhaul capabilities required in DIABLO Task Order 1 PWS paragraph 5.6.1 and 5.15 either via an established agreement as/with an authorized service provider or the identified Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM). Acceptable proof includes a subcontract agreement, commitment to subcontract agreement, service provider agreement, and/or license agreement. If submitting an authorized service provider in lieu of OEM, Offeror shall include a separate letter from the OEM authorizing services and/or proof of negotiated licensing agreements. If OEM refuses to team due to an exclusivity agreement with another Offeror, submit proof of OEM refusal. OEM teaming refusals due to exclusivity agreements with competing Offerors shall not result in an Unacceptable rating. Any agreements and letters shall not be older than one hundred eighty (180) calendar days from the date proposals are due.

Phase One will be rated separately as either acceptable or unacceptable (see Table M.2.1.1 below):

Table M.2.1.1 Phase One Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Phase Two: Factor 1 - Technical Phase Two Factor 1 will be evaluated using two distinct but related assessments: the technical rating and the technical risk ratings as outlined below.

Phase Two: Factor 1 - Subfactor A – Breadth and Depth Engineering Capabilities The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s engineering approach is feasible and meets Attachment 0001 - Base PWS 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5 requirements; the extent to which success is not contingent upon untried or unproven processes or methods; the extent to which the design optimizes MOSA/SOSA; and the extent to which the Offeror’s methods and approach demonstrates knowledge of technical landscape/engineering processes, accounts for risks, and actively manages team members/relationships.

Phase Two: Factor 1 - Subfactor B - Tier 2/3 Vendor Management and Metric Plan The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal meets Attachment 0001 - Base PWS paragraph 4.2.3 requirements, identifies realistic techniques to motivate tier 2/3 vendor superior performance, and provides proactive strategies/metrics to mitigate risk, identify opportunities, and/or quickly implement corrective action approaches. The Offeror’s Tier 2/3 Vendor Management and Metric Plan will be incorporated into Section J of the resultant contract.

Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Within the technical factor under Phase Two, the subfactors are in descending order of importance with Subfactor A being more important than Subfactor B. Color ratings will be provided at the subfactor level. The color rating will not be rolled up to the factor level. Offerors must receive an acceptable rating under Phase 2 Factors 3 and 4 in order to be considered for the best value determination.

Phase Two Factor 1 is significantly more important than Phase Two Factor 2.

Technical Rating The technical rating provides an assessment of the Offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s requirements. Each subfactor under Phase Two Factor 1 will receive one of the color ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Technical Ratings, excerpted on Table M.2.2.4. below.

The technical ratings focus on the strengths, deficiencies, and uncertainties of the Offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the factor requirements.

Table M.2.2.4 Technical Ratings

Technical Risk Rating The Technical Risk evaluation focuses on the weaknesses or significant weaknesses associated with an Offeror's proposed approach and includes an assessment of the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Each subfactor under Phase Two Factor 1 will receive one of the risk ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Technical Risk Ratings, excerpted in Table M.2.2.5 below.

Table M.2.2.5 Technical Risk Ratings

Definitions The following ratings terminology is applicable for Tables M.2.2.4 and M.2.2.5:

Significant Strength - is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Strength - is 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 - means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness - in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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.

Uncertainty - is any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

The ratings terminologies focus on the strengths, deficiencies, uncertainties, and weaknesses of the Offeror's proposal.

Phase Two: Factor 2 - Cost/Price The Offeror's cost/price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404; a color rating is not assigned to the cost/price factor. Normally, price reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. The Government will determine completeness of the Offeror's proposal by verifying that all solicitation requirements have been priced, figures are correctly calculated, and costs are presented in a clear and useful format. The Government will evaluate Offerors' proposed costs for reasonableness, completeness, and realism in total in accordance with the below:

Firm Fixed Price QRC CLIN FFP QRC pricing will be evaluated using Price Analysis and will be evaluated to ensure the proposed pricing is not unbalanced.

Total Evaluated Price for FFP QRC CLIN In order to develop a total evaluated price, the FFP QRC unit price will be applied to a Government Best Estimated Quantity (BEQ) for each year in order to develop the evaluation price for the FFP QRC CLIN.

Best Estimated Quantities:

Task Order 1 The Government will evaluate the realism of each Offeror’s proposed costs for Cost Plus Fixed Fee CLINs on Task Order 1. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed costs are sufficient for the work to be performed, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, and consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical/management proposal (FAR 15.404-1(d)(1) and 2.101). Failure to demonstrate a clear understanding of the effort or failure to provide adequate support in order for the Government to determine the proposed costs realistic may result in an undeterminable probable cost. Offerors with an undeterminable probable cost are not eligible for award.

Overall Total Evaluated Price The total evaluated cost/price will be computed as follows:

· The quoted FFP unit price for the QRC multiplied by the BEQ of six (6) per year.

· The probable cost for Task Order 1.

· The option to extend cost for 52.217-8 for Task Order 1 will be part of the evaluation price. In accordance with FAR 52.217-8 continued performance of any services within the limits and at the rates specified in the contract and shall not exceed six (6) months. Therefore, the probable cost for the six (6) month POP to be proposed in year two (2) of the Task Order will be duplicated in order to estimate the extension pricing for evaluation purposes only.

The total evaluated cost/price will therefore consist of the Offeror’s proposed QRC Pricing as extended in accordance with evaluation criteria, the Task Order probable cost and the estimate for the Option to Extend the task order.

Note: Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

Phase Two: Factor 3 - Past Performance Past Performance will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis using the ratings in Table M.2.4.7.

Past Performance Assessment The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the Offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements.

Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation Sources are as follows:

1. Past performance information provided by the Offeror in Volume IV.

1. Past performance information may also be utilized from established systems such as the Contractor’s Past Performance Assessment System (CPARS), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and may be obtained from other sources available to the Government, such as the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, KOs.

Recency and Relevancy The past performance references submitted must adhere to the recent and relevant definitions below to be considered acceptable.

Recency An assessment 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 original date of issuance of this solicitation, or for ongoing efforts, must have been in performance at least nine (9) months prior to proposal due date. Past performance information that fails the recency condition will not be evaluated for relevancy or quality.

Relevancy The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent past performance submissions. For each recent past performance reference reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will be assessed. Relevant past performance means providing evidence demonstrating experience with designing, testing, maintaining, and sustaining MULTI-INT sensing systems on manned / uncrewed (unmanned) platforms of similar size and scope.

Performance Quality Assessment The Government will consider the performance quality of each recent and relevant effort (i.e., how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for acceptability or unacceptability. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance information provided, CPARS, PPIRS information, and/or interviews with Government customers. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government.

Assigning Ratings As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated past performance rating at the factor level. The Offeror will receive an overall “acceptable” or “unacceptable” rating for the Past Performance factor based on the recent, relevant and quality assessment ratings of all past performance references.

NOTE: In the case of an Offeror without a record of recent and relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

Table M.2.4.7 Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Phase Two: Factor 4 - Small Business Participation Small Business Concerns Assessment In accordance with DFARS 215.304(c)(i), the Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s (both small businesses and other than small businesses) proposed Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) meets the below small business objectives and includes documentation to support how the Offeror will meet their proposed Small Business participation commitment. The Offeror’s Small Business Participation will be rated using Table M.2.5.2 below. A rating of “Acceptable” must be achieved to be considered for award.

The Government will evaluate the following:

1. Whether or not, in accordance with, FAR Part 19, Small Business Concerns (SBC) are specifically identified by name in each category in the Offeror’s SBPCD proposal and the Offeror’s commitment to SBCs.

2. The type, variety, and complexity of work SBCs are proposed to perform.

3. Whether or not the Offeror identified all SBCs by company name and CAGE code, business category(ies) and applicable NAICS codes, and include a brief description of products or services or specific base PWS reference number.

4. Whether or not the Offeror demonstrates a substantive commitment to SBCs, such as letters of commitment, Joint Ventures, mentor/protégé agreements, or other demonstrations of commitment. Binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements.

5. Whether or not the Offeror’s proposed SBC participation meets the minimum quantitative requirement (MQR) (small business objective) of 10% of the total contract ordering ceiling. Failure to meet the MQR without providing an explanation shall result in the Offeror being unacceptable for this factor and therefore ineligible for award.

6. The Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s detailed explanations/documentation supporting their proposed quantitative participation.

7. Whether or not the Offeror complied with and provided past performance information to demonstrate the requirements of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns.

Small Business Subcontracting Plan Assessment The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is required (FAR 52.219-9) for Other Than Small Businesses (OTSB) Offerors ONLY (i.e., Large Businesses). OTSB Firms must submit acceptable subcontracting plans in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 to be eligible for award. Any Small Business Subcontracting Plan submitted shall be relevant to the SBPCD and Volume V, Part D-- Small Business Participation.

NOTE: Subcontracting plans will only be reviewed for acceptability for the Offeror deemed to be apparent awardee.

The Government will review the Small Business Participation Plan on an acceptable or unacceptable basis.

Table M.2.5.2 Small Business Participation Acceptable/Unacceptable Method

Additional Requirements Property Management Plan Compliance The Government will review the Offeror’s Property Management Plan in accordance with FAR 45.201(c)(4) and solicitation requirements. An acceptable plan meets all requirements. Failure to submit a compliant Property Management Plan may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award.

OCI Mitigation Plan TIf applicable, the Government’s review of the Offeror’s OCI Mitigation plan will consider:

1. The degree to which the offeror addresses OCI concerns

2. The Oofferor’s approach for mitigating OCI issues

3. The adequacy of its OCI training and oversight programs

4. The adequacy of its procedures; and

5. Whether or not the offeror’s OCI plan and/or mitigation strategy complies with all regulatory and statutory requirements, including FAR Subpart 9.5.

An acceptable plan is one that addresses the items above and does not present any actual or perceived conflicts of interest. Offerors are notified that the KO will review any and all OCI Mitigation Plans submitted under this solicitation and document findings.

Other Information The Government will review other Offeror’s information such as completed DD Form 254 Contract Security Classification(s) and Data Rights Assertion Table(s) in compliance with solicitation requirements and associated terms and conditions. Failure to provide compliant offerings may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award.

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.

M-2