# PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

# SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD TO OFFERORS

M-1 EVALUATION of Options (FAR 52.217-5) (Jul 1990) - Modified

Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be
in the Government\'s best interests, the Government will evaluate offers
for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the
total price for the basic requirement and phase-in period. Evaluation of
options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(End of provision)

M-2 SOURCE EVALUATION PROCEDURES

(a) This competitive negotiated acquisition shall be conducted in
    accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3,
    "Source Selection", as supplemented by NASA FAR Supplement (NFS),
    Part 1815.3, same subject. The source evaluation board procedures at
    NFS 1815.370, "NASA source evaluation boards" applies. The proposal
    submission instructions set forth in Section L are designed to
    provide guidance to the offeror concerning the type of documentation
    that is necessary for proposal evaluation. The information required
    to be submitted in Section L will be evaluated under the
    corresponding factors and subfactors. 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. Proposals submitted will be evaluated in
    accordance with criteria defined in this Section M. Proposals will
    be evaluated in accordance with the following three factors; Mission
    Suitability, Past Performance and Price/Cost. Only the Mission
    Suitability Factor will be numerically weighted and scored. However,
    offerors are cautioned not to minimize the importance of adequate
    response to Past Performance and Price/Cost. The Contracting Officer
    may reject proposal(s) as being unacceptable at any time after
    receipt of written proposal materials. If rejected, the Contracting
    Officer will make a determination that the proposal is unacceptable,
    in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70 and document the reasons
    therefore. Notwithstanding FAR provision 52.215-1, Instructions to
    Offerors - Competitive Acquisition, paragraph (f), award shall be
    made to a single offeror whose offer responds to all items included
    in the solicitation. Failure to provide for any item including any
    option shall render the bid nonresponsive or may cause the
    offeror\'s proposal to be rejected.

RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS

All evaluation factors other than Cost /Price, when combined, are
approximately equal to Price/Cost. The Past Performance Factor is less
important than the Mission Suitability Factor.

M-3 EVALUATION FACTORS

## MISSION SUITABILITY FACTOR

\(a\) Evaluation of the Mission Suitability Factor will focus on the
offeror's demonstrated understanding of the requirements, the offeror's
proposed technical and management approaches to meeting the
requirements, and the offeror's ability to perform as proposed. The
Government will use the adjective ratings, definitions, and percentile
ranges in accordance with NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A) to evaluate the Mission
Suitability subfactors and the total Mission Suitability factor.

\(b\) Proposal risk associated with cost, schedule, and performance of
technical aspects of the proposal will be evaluated and considered in
determining the numerical and adjective ratings and the strengths and
weaknesses. The evaluation of risk will consider the probability of
success, impact of failure, and alternatives available to meet the
requirements.

\(c\) The Mission Suitability Factor consists of three subfactors as
follows:

Subfactor-1 - Management Approach

The offeror's approach to overall management, organization, and
integration of the requirements will be evaluated. Specifically, the
organizational approach, management and supervisory controls used to
conduct business, the structure of the corporate and
sub-contractor/teaming partners, evidence of business and technical
interfaces to NASA and payload customers, and decision-making levels of
authority for conducting business will be included in the evaluation.

The offeror's understanding and approach to performance-based
contracting including: proposed techniques, processes and measurements
that ensure acceptable levels of performance will be evaluated. The
offeror proposed award fee pool will be evaluated for its ability to
encourage excellent performance for both Fixed Price and Cost
Reimbursable areas of the contract.

The offeror's understanding and capability to successfully manage and
administer this hybrid Fixed Price/Cost-Reimbursable type contract,
including effective business system development and use will be
evaluated.

The offeror's approach to ensure successful contract phase-in including
roles, responsibilities, major transition events and ability to maintain
continuity of services will be evaluated.

The offeror's approach to identifying, mitigating, and managing
programmatic risk areas during performance, including probability of
success, impact of failure, and alternatives available to meet the
solicitation requirements will be evaluated.

The offeror's Quality Manual will be evaluated for thoroughness in
accordance with the applicable American National Standard ANSI/ISO/ASQ
Q9001-1994/2000 revision All organizations that are certified or in
compliance with Q9001-1994 will need to transition Q9001-2000 by
December 2003.

The offeror's proposed key positions, and the identified key personnel
to fill those positions will be evaluated. The qualifications of the key
personnel and demonstrated commitment of that individual to work for the
offeror's organization will be considered.

The offeror's approaches to hiring and retaining a knowledgeable and
talented workforce with the skills necessary for successful performance
will be evaluated.

The offeror's demonstrated understanding of the provisions and
requirements of the Service Contract Act, labor-management relations,
total compensation equity. The Government will evaluate the Total
Compensation Plan as specified in L-15, NFS 18-52.231-71 "Determination
of Compensation Reasonableness" and L-14, FAR 52.222-46 "Evaluation of
Compensation for Professional Employees will be evaluated.

Subfactor-2 - Technical Approach

The offeror's approach to implement and perform the requirements as
stated in the SOW will be evaluated.

> The offeror's proposed implementation of NASA's oversight requirements
> for LSPs will be evaluated. The evaluation will consider the offeror's
> understanding of the oversight requirements, implementation of the
> requirements, the types of skills required, and the role of the
> offeror. The understanding of the launch vehicle certification process
> and the types of skills required for its successful implementation and
> completion will be evaluated. The understanding of the engineering
> review process and as well as the types of skills required for its
> successful implementation and completion will be evaluated
>
> The offeror's approach to satisfying the mission integration and
> analysis requirements will be evaluated. This includes the method to
> capture and satisfy all mission integration requirements and the role
> of the offeror in the mission integration activities. The offeror's
> understanding of LSPs analyses methodology used in all mission
> analysis areas in the SOW and how the offeror would develop launch
> vehicle models in each of these areas will be evaluated. Also, the
> offeror's understanding of the methodology and types of skills needed
> to review LSP-provided analyses/documentation to ensure that critical
> mission requirements are met will be evaluated.

The offeror's understanding of program policies and approach to ensure
safety requirements of the LSPs and payload customers at the PPFs will
be evaluated. This includes knowledge of hazardous processes,
professional engineering practices and principles, industrial safety
programs, and applicable regulations for hazardous processing of ELVs,
spacecraft and ground support equipment; process to identify and resolve
safety concerns and conflicting requirements with KSC, Air Force, LSP,
and spacecraft contractors; skill in the identification, assessment and
effective resolution of safety issues in situations involving time
constraints and rapidly changing parameters; and the process to provide
safety instruction to all levels of NASA, LSP, and spacecraft contractor
personnel.

The offeror's approach to implement an effective quality assurance
program will be evaluated. This includes the understanding of program
policies, process controls, risk identification and assessment. Also,
the offeror's capability to implement a surveillance program to ensure
that all contractual requirements are met; the ability to identify,
assess, and effectively resolve quality issues in situations involving
time constraints and rapidly changing parameters during mission
integration and launch processing activities; and, the offeror's
understanding of methods needed to assess the flight readiness of the
mission-assigned vehicles and to identify any constraints within the
fleet of vehicles will be evaluated.

The offeror's approach to certifying the readiness of VAFB facilities to
support payload processing, and launch activities will be evaluated.
This includes evaluation of the proposed activities required to achieve
readiness of the payload processing facility systems and the
communications and telemetry systems for payload and vehicle testing and
launch.

The offeror's approach for utilizing Information Technology in the
performance of contract requirements will be evaluated. This will
include evaluation of proposed information systems and data sharing with
NASA, maintaining interoperability and access between contractor
systems/applications and Government users/customers, and the approach to
implement the requirements of NPG 2810.1 Security of Information
Technology.

The offeror's proposed staffing plan, the proposed skill mix,
educational levels, and staffing levels matched to each element of the
SOW will be evaluated. The evaluation will include assessment of the
offeror's rationale for skills and staffing levels and the understanding
the degree of effort necessary for successful performance of the
functions required by the SOW.

Subfactor 3 - Safety and Health

The offeror's safety approach used to establish and implement the Safety
and Health Plan will be evaluated. This includes an evaluation of the
offeror's understanding of program policies, occupational health,
industrial safety, operational safety, systems safety, process safety,
safety risk identification and assessment, and external and internal
reporting. Also, this includes an evaluation of the offeror's knowledge
of Safety and Health compliance requirements, including but not limited
to Federal, State, Local, NASA Agency-wide, and installation specific
policies, and procedures and how they are effectively implemented into
the offeror's safety management approach.

The offeror's Safety and Health Plan as requested in L-13 will be
evaluated per NPG 8715.3, NASA Safety Manual, Appendix H.

M-4 MISSION SUITABILITY FACTOR AND SUBFACTOR WEIGHTS

The Mission Suitability sub-factors will be evaluated to determine the
relative merits of the Offeror\'s proposal. In accordance with NFS
1815.304-70(b)(1), the Mission Suitability factor will be weighted and
scored on a 1000 point scale.

The weights (points) associated with each Mission Suitability subfactor
are as follows:

(Subfactor-1) Management Approach 350

(Subfactor-2) Technical Approach 550

[(Subfactor-3) Safety And Health 100]{.underline}

> TOTAL MISSION SUITABILITY FACTOR 1000

The total Mission Suitability factor, and all subfactors, will be
evaluated using the adjectival rating, definitions and percentile ranges
at NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A).

The maximum points available for each subfactor will be multiplied by
the assessed percent for each subfactor to derive the score for the
particular subfactor. For example, if a subfactor has a possible 200
points and receives a percent rating of 80, then the score for the
subfactor is 160 points.

M-5 PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

\(a\) Information provided by the offerors in past performance will be
evaluated as to the offeror\'s ability to perform the contract
successfully. For the purpose of evaluation of past performance
information, offerors shall be defined as business arrangements and
relationships such as joint ventures, teaming partners, and major
subcontractors. Each firm in the business arrangement will be evaluated
on its performance under existing and prior contracts for similar
products or services. The currency and relevance of past performance
information, source of the information, context of the data, and general
trends in offeror\'s performance will be considered in the evaluation.
The Offeror's performance under previously awarded relevant contracts
will be assessed. The Government may consider information provided by
the offerors, by references provided in accordance with L-10 "Specific
Instructions \-- Past Performance Factor", paragraph (d), and
information provided by other sources.

\(b\) The evaluation of Past Performance will be conducted in accordance
with the FAR 15.305 (a) (2) and NFS 1815.305 (a)(2). This factor is not
numerically weighted or scored. The government will evaluate each
offeror (including its major subcontractors) and assign one of the
following adjectival ratings: Exceptional, Above Average, Satisfactory,
Neutral, Marginal or Unsatisfactory. Offerors without a record of
relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is
not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past
performance.

\(c\) Each performance evaluation and risk assessment will consider the
number and severity of problems, the effectiveness of corrective actions
taken, and the overall work record. The assessment of performance risk
is not intended to be a simple arithmetic function of an offeror's
performance on a list of contracts, but rather the information deemed
most relevant and significant will receive the greatest consideration.
Relevant past performance is the demonstrated ability to accomplish work
that is comparable and related to the objectives of this procurement.

The past performance evaluation will include an assessment of the
following:

1.  Management/Contract Performance

The evaluation will consider how well the offeror has met completion
dates, the level of customer satisfaction, and the timeliness and
quality of deliverables. This includes any unique schedule requirements
that had to be met, interim deliverables or milestones such as periodic
technical and business reports, and completion of valid customer
direction such as task and mission assignments.

2.  Technical Performance

> The evaluation will consider the offeror's compliance with technical
> requirements and performance standards for previous and present work.
> For services and support, the quality of service or support shall be
> considered. Consideration will be given the extent to which contract
> objectives (safety, management, technical, occupational health,
> security, and overall mission success) have been achieved on relevant
> efforts by the offeror. Particular attention will be given to
> Launch/Space Vehicle Engineering Assessment (Safety &Mission
> Assurance/Vehicle Engineering), Flight Mission Analysis (Independent
> Verification & Validation/Mission Support), Facility Management and
> Operation (Processing/Telemetry).

\(d\) In making the selection, the source selection authority will
determine the relevance of past performance information. This
comparative assessment of past performance information is separate from
the responsibility determination required under FAR Subpart 9.1. The
Government will evaluate the offeror's performance history in order to
indicate the likelihood of successful performance of the contract
requirements.

\(e\) Submitted past performance questionnaire information for the
offeror and all proposed major sub-contractors/teaming arrangements will
be evaluated. The references identified by the offeror may be contacted
for additional information.

\(f\) As applicable, this evaluation will also take into account past
performance information regarding predecessor companies or
subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the
requirement when such information is relevant to this acquisition.

M-6 PRICE/COST EVALUATION FACTOR

\(a\) The price/cost evaluation factor is used to assess what each
offeror's proposal will cost the Government should it be selected for
award. The offeror's price/cost proposal will be evaluated to determine
whether the proposed amounts are realistic for the work to be performed,
whether they reflect an understanding of the requirements, and whether
they are consistent with the various elements of the Mission Suitability
proposal. This factor is not numerically scored or weighted.

A price analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.4
to ensure the Government pays a fair and reasonable price. Proposals
will be evaluated to determine if the prices are unbalanced, as defined
in FAR Subpart 15.404-1(g), and included in the risk assessment.

\(b\) For the purposes of proposal evaluation and source selection, the
proposed amounts of the phase-in period and both options will be added
to the proposed amount of the basic contract period. Indefinite
delivery, indefinite quantity items to be ordered on a task order basis
will be evaluated as follows:

(i) Mission Direct Support - The price(s) of Mission Direct Support will
    be evaluated to ensure the Government pays a fair and reasonable
    price. The Government-specified best estimated quantities multiplied
    by the proposed unit prices in each year will be included in the
    total proposed amount for proposal evaluation and source selection.

(ii) Facility Modifications, Design and Construction - The successful
     offeror will be required to provide facility modifications, design
     and construction services described in SOW paragraph 11.0 on a task
     order basis. Specific projects have not been identified at this
     time. The Government estimate to perform the projects is \$19
     Million. For source selection purposes, this amount will be added
     to each prime offeror's total proposed amount to project probable
     cost to the Government of the ELVIS contract

\(c\) Offerors should refer to FAR 15.401 for a definition of "cost
realism" and to FAR 15.404-1(d) for a discussion of \"cost realism
analysis" and "probable cost" for other than the fixed price effort.
Both the proposed cost and the probable cost will be presented to the
Source Selection Authority. Probable cost to the Government will include
G&A at the proposed ceiling rate. Proposal risk will also be considered
in the evaluation. The analysis will include the level of confidence in
the probable cost assessment of each proposal.

> \(d\) Also included in the evaluation will be an analysis of the
> offeror's administrative data, which is comprised of financial
> capability to perform a contract of this magnitude, model contract,
> (e.g., acceptance of contract terms and conditions, and
> representations and certifications), and Equal Employment Opportunity
> pre-award clearance.
>
> \[END OF SECTION\]