Annex 5 - Evaluation Criteria_Phase I Option and II.docx

Evaluation Criteria for Phase I Option, Phase II, and Phase III

1.0 Down-Selection and Exercise of Option 1

To be awarded the Phase I Option to proceed to Fly-off #2, the USG will utilize a Best Value Down-Selection Evaluation. Over the course of Phase I, the USG will assess Mission Effectiveness, using a holistic performance modeling approach accounting for flight characteristics, survivability and lethality of the solution against the intended targets. Solution performance models will be updated as the design evolves, and performance predictions are validated by component and flight testing. Mission Effectiveness of each solution will be evaluated in the context of the mission scenario defining the capability gap that PrSM Increment 4 must address. The USG will evaluate the exercise of Option 1 based on four weighted factors:

· Factor 1: Schedule

· Flight demonstration and production date targets of the program are achievable.

· Schedule risks are identified and appropriate mitigations are in place.

· Factor 2: Technical Performance vs. Metrics

· Evaluation of Mission Effectiveness Analysis conducted over Phase I against the Thresholds defined in Request for Solutions (RFS) Section 4.2.

· Evaluation of Mission Effectiveness Analysis conducted over Phase against the Objectives defined in RFS Section 2.4.

· Evaluation of mitigation of the primary technical risks identified in their initial proposal.

· TRL: Prototypes should reach a TRL of 6 for Flyoff 1.

· Factor 3: Architectural Integrity (MOSA)

· Evaluation analysis of conformance to MOSA requirement as documented in RFS section 4.1.

· Factor 4: Price Reasonableness

· Option 1 Price: Analysis of the negotiated price for Option 1

· Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2. Factor 2 is more important than Factor 3. Factor 3 is more important than Factor 4. When combined, non-price factors are significantly more important than price factors.

1.1 The "Final Fly-Off" (Phase I to Phase II Transition)

The final down-select for the Phase II Qualification via Mod to the Prototype OTA will be based on a Best Value Down-Selection Evaluation derived from the final Phase I Flight Demonstration. The evaluation will be based on five weighted factors.

· Factor 1: Operational performance demonstrated in the test environment and predicted in the final Mission Effectiveness Analysis.

· Factor 2: Assessment of projected capacity rate and delivery dates during production.

· Factor 3: Manufacturing & Production Readiness (MRL)

· Scalability: Evaluation of sourcing at scale of components for Phase III.

· Supply Chain Risk: Assessment of the Performer’s ability to secure the "long-lead" items required for production.

· TRL: Prototypes should reach a TRL of 6+ for Flyoff 2.

· Factor 4: Evaluation analysis of conformance to MOSA requirement as documented in section RFS Section 4.1.

· Factor 5: Proposed costs for Phase II and updated final "Firm Fixed Price" for production units (refining the initial ROM).

Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2. Factor 2 is more important than Factor 3. Factor 3 is more important than Factor 4. Factor 4 is more important than Factor 5. When combined, the non-cost factors are significantly more important than the price factor.

1.2 Production (Phase II to III Transition) Comment by Lawson, Christina H CTR USARMY CPE OFFENSIVE FIRES (USA): Do we even need this para if we are going to award production (Phase III) as a new OTA?

Performers selected for Phase III must have their prototype deemed successful according to the criteria stated in 8.2. Further, Performers must demonstrate acceptable manufacturing and production readiness levels, and have approved modularity, open system architectures, and interfaces at a price deemed fair and reasonable by the Agreements Officer (AO).