ATSP5 Solicitation ATT 04- ATSP5 Evaluation Factors for Award (Section M).pdf

BASIS FOR AWARD / EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD (BFA/EFFA)

1.0 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

(a) The Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) is the sole point of contact for this acquisition. Offerors are prohibited from engaging in discourse with DMEA technical personnel regarding this RFP. Offerors shall address any questions or concerns regarding this acquisition to the PCO. Written requests for clarification may be sent to the PCO at the address located in the model contract/solicitation/ Questions and comments will be addressed via the SAM.GOV posting, with the offerors identity removed. Most questions and comments will be generalized to apply to a broader audience.

(b) DMEA will consider each offeror’s adherence to the terms and conditions specified by DMEA in the Request For Proposal (RFP). DMEA will consider the adequacy, and the consistency of the information provided in the offeror’s proposal with respect to what is requested in the attached “Instructions for Preparation of Proposals (IFPP)”. DMEA reserves its right to conduct a Pre-Award survey as part of the basis for contract award. Teaming and subcontracting arrangements will be evaluated to determine whether such arrangements affect the risk to

DMEA.

2.0 BASIC PRINCIPLES

The ATSP5 prime contractors are expected to have a significant technical role in all task orders issued under the ATSP5 contract. The results of the DMEA risk analysis have been used to develop the evaluation criteria. DMEA has determined that offerors who possess the technical resources and capability to utilize these resources significantly mitigate risk. Therefore, DMEA is strongly interested in the resources, capability and program organization of the prime offeror. The prime offeror is the entity with which DMEA could have a resulting contract.

As such, the prime would be held fully responsible for the contract performance, regardless of any arrangements between the prime offeror and its proposed subcontractors, team members, vendors or other associates. In addition, the in-house experience level of the prime offeror has a direct bearing on their ability to select, manage, and control any required subcontractors/team members. Therefore, the resources and experience of the prime offeror versus any proposed subcontractors/team members is an important part of the technical evaluation.

3.0 DEFINITIONS

(a) Evaluation Definitions – The following definitions will be used in the evaluation:

1. Best Value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. See FAR 2.101.

2. Competitive Range is all the most highly rated proposals (based on the rating of each proposal against all evaluation criteria), unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency. See FAR 15.306(c).

3. 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. See FAR 15.001.

4. Evaluation Notice (EN) is the PCO’s written notification to the offeror for purposes of clarifications, communications, or discussions.

5. Performance Confidence Assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood (or Government’s confidence) that the offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements; the evaluation is based upon past performance information.

6. Quality is the composite of materiel attributes including performance features and characteristics of a production or service to satisfy a customer's given need.

7. Recency, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the elapsed time since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

8. Relevancy, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/ teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

9. Requirements Documents are all aspects of the RFP that convey the needs of the Government to offerors, including any Statements of Objectives (SOO), Statements of Work (SOW), Performance Work Statements (PWS), technical requirement documents, and system requirement documents.

10. Requirements Owner is the entity (for example, a program management office or other organizational entity) responsible for providing requirements documents within the RFP that communicate those requirements to offerors.

11. Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. (For firm-fixed-price contracts, the reference to increased cost may be removed from the risk definition.)

12. 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.

13. Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

14. Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) is a group of individuals, appointed as needed by the SSA, who provide counsel during the source selection process, prepare the comparative analysis of the SSEB's final evaluation results, and make an award recommendation to the SSA.

15. Source Selection Authority (SSA) is the official designated to make the source selection decision.

16. Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) is the document of the SSA's independent, integrated, comparative analysis and decision.

17. Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) is a group of individuals representing the various functional disciplines relevant to the acquisition that is responsible for evaluating proposals against the solicitation criteria.

18. Source Selection Information is information prepared for use by an agency for the purpose of evaluating a bid or proposal to enter into an agency procurement contract if the information was not previously made available to the public or disclosed publicly. See FAR 2.101 for a listing of source selection information.

19. Source Selection Plan (SSP) is a plan describing how the source selection will be organized, how proposals will be evaluated and analyzed, and how source(s) will be selected.

20. Source Selection Team (SST) is a team tailored to the specific acquisition, tasked with carrying out a source selection. Composition of the team generally consists of the SSA, PCO (if different from the SSA), SSAC, SSEB, Advisors, Cost or Price Experts, Legal Counsel, Small Business Professionals/Specialists, and other subject-matter experts.

21. Technically Acceptable- To be determined Technically Acceptable an offerors proposal must conform to the requirements of the solicitation and receive the following evaluation ratings:

• A Combined Technical/Risk Rating for Resources Factor of Green/Acceptable or better

• A Combined Technical/Risk Rating for Management Factor of Green/Acceptable or better

• A Small Business Rating of Green/Acceptable or better

22. Threshold or Threshold Minimum (as used in this document) is the minimum acceptable value of an attribute considered achievable within the available cost, schedule, and technology at low-to-moderate risk.

Performance below the threshold value is not operationally effective or suitable or may not provide an improvement over current capabilities. See also “mandatory minimums” in FAR 15.306(d)(4).

23. 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).

24. Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See

FAR 15.001.

(b) Please see the additional definitions within Section L, Instruction for Proposal Preparation (IFPP) 1.2.

4.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS FOR AWARD

(a) This section outlines the evaluation criteria that the Government will consider in evaluating the offeror's capabilities and the proposals submitted in response to the ATSP5 solicitation. The Government will make the best value determination for this source selection using the tradeoff process. These evaluation criteria are intended to detail the scope of the evaluation to be performed on proposals submitted in response to the request for proposal (RFP). The result of the evaluation will be provided to the SSA for use in making a source selection decision in accordance with the paragraphs below. Offerors shall submit information in the format specified in Section L.

Offerors may be asked, at the discretion of the Government, to provide additional information for clarification or discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal as received, without discussions. Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should reflect its best effort. The Government will be utilizing a phased approach. How an offeror can meet the gate criteria to move to the second and third phase respectively will be specified in the evaluation criteria (Section M). In exchanges with offerors during the phased approach, teams will be consistent with FAR 15.306.

PHASE 1

Phase 1 will evaluate the offerors submittal detailing their organization’s current facility clearance level in contrast to the solicitation’s minimum requirement. The minimum required active facility clearance required for contract award is a Secret Facility Clearance.

The offerors submittal for this phase must also detail their organization’s DCMA-approved business systems. The solicitation’s minimum requirement to move past phase 1 are Accounting System, Cost Estimating System, Material Management and Accounting System (MMAS), and Property Management System.

A division of a company proposing on this requirement can utilize its parent company’s approved business systems for its submittal in the event that at the division level, the performer does not have approved business systems.

The requirement for these business systems is based on FAR, DFARS and requirements also defined under DCMA-

MAN 2301-01.

Accounting System: A compliant accounting system provides reasonable assurance that the accounting methods, procedures, and controls produce accurate and timely financial data, follow applicable laws and regulations, and may be relied upon to make management decisions. Accounting system criteria is prescribed in DFARS 252.242- 7006, “Accounting System Administration.” Related accounting system controls are also prescribed in DFARS 242.75, “Contractor Accounting System and Related Controls” and DFARS Procedures, Guidance and Information (PGI) 242.75, “Contractor Accounting System and Related Controls.”

An acceptable accounting system is required for all contractors receiving cost-reimbursement, incentive type, time-and-materials, labor-hour contracts, or contracts which provide for progress payments based on costs or on a percentage or stage of completion.

Cost Estimating: An acceptable cost estimating system consistently produces well-supported, documented, timely proposals (cost estimates) that are an acceptable basis for negotiation of fair and reasonable prices. Estimating systems must be consistent and integrated with the contractor’s related management systems and be subject to applicable financial control systems pursuant to DFARS 252.215-7002, “Cost Estimating System Requirements.”

Acceptable estimating systems benefit the Government and the contractor by increasing the accuracy and reliability of individual proposals.

All contractors must have an acceptable estimating system that provides for the use of appropriate source data, utilizes sound estimating techniques and good judgment, and maintains a consistent approach. Only contractors meeting the applicability in DFARS 215.407-5-70(b), are subject to estimating system disclosure, maintenance, and review requirements.

MMAS: A compliant MMAS maintains effective planning, controlling, and accounting for the acquisition, use, issuance, and disposition of materials as prescribed in DFARS 252.242-7004, “Material Management and Accounting System.” It protects the Government’s interests when Government financing is included in contracts.

MMAS requirements apply to contractors that receive cost-reimbursement or fixed-price contracts with progress payments based on costs that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold and are not commercial item acquisitions.

MMAS requirements do not apply to any contractors considered to be a small business, educational institution, or non-profit organization.

Property Management System: A compliant property management system protects the Government’s interests and assets by maintaining procedures, records and methodologies necessary for effective and efficient management and control (usage, preservation, protection, repair and maintenance) of Government property, and complies with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.245-1, “Government Property” as prescribed in DFARS 252.245-7003, “Contractor Property Management System Administration” and 252.245-7005, “Management and Reporting of Government Property”.

The contractor is required to establish and maintain a property management system when it is anticipated that Government property will be furnished or acquired during performance under:

(1) All cost-reimbursement, time and materials, and labor-hour contracts and delivery orders, except when it is clear no Government property will be furnished or acquired.

(2) Fixed-price contracts and delivery orders.

(3) Purchase orders for repair, maintenance, and overhaul when the total unit acquisition value exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold, or other Government property (not for repair) is provided.

(4) Contracts awarded under FAR Part 12, “Acquisition of Commercial Items,” procedures where Government property exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold is furnished or directed to be acquired for use under the contract that is titled to the Government.

The above approved business systems are the minimum requirements to move past Phase 1. If an offeror has an approved Purchasing system or an approved Earned Value Management System (EVMS), they shall provide it as part of their submittal as well. Information on the below approved business systems will be reviewed as strengths in the Phase 2 evaluation under the Management Factor.

Purchasing System: Pursuant to FAR 44.3, “Contractors Purchasing System Review,” and DFARS 252.244-7001, “Contractor Purchasing System Administration,” a compliant purchasing system demonstrates efficient and effective policies and practices for the purchase of material and services, and overall subcontract management. It provides adequate protection of the Government’s interests regarding responsible subcontractors, competition, small business utilization, pricing, and implementation of higher-level quality standards. An acceptable purchasing system also includes counterfeit electronic part detection and avoidance. This is to ensure effective and efficient procurement of required quality materials and parts at the best value from responsible and reliable sources.

EVMS: An acceptable EVMS, complies with the guidelines in the Electronic Industries Alliance Standard-748 (EIA-748) as prescribed in DFARS 252.234-7002, “Earned Value Management System.” By maintaining effective management control systems and integrated technical, schedule, and cost planning processes, an acceptable EVMS provides the Government a measure of confidence that the contractor’s data is verifiable and can be relied upon when making program and contract decisions.

An approved EVMS system is required for DoD cost or incentive contracts and subcontracts valued at $20 million or more: Contracts and subcontracts valued at $20 million up to, but not including $100 million, DCMA will only take action when requested by a Government stakeholder.

An adjectival rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable will be issued depending on whether an offeror’s submittal meets the minimum criteria described above.

Offerors not meeting the established criteria will then be excluded from further evaluation and will be sent an unsuccessful offeror letter in accordance with FAR 15.503(a)(1). Pre-Award debriefs will be available in accordance with FAR 15.505. Offerors whose evaluated criteria have met the minimum requirements will proceed to the Phase

2 where their requested submittal for the Past Performance Factor, Resources Factor, Management Factor and Small Business Factor will be submitted and evaluated. Information presented in Phase 1 will be utilized in assigning a combined Technical/Risk Rating for the Management Factor. Pre-Award debriefs will be available in accordance with FAR 15.505.

PHASE 2

Phase 2 will evaluate the offers submittal detailing their Past Performance factor, Resources factor, Management factor, and Small Business factor. Information submitted for Phase 1 will also be utilized in evaluating the Management factor in this phase. A combined technical/risk rating will be individually issued in this evaluation phase for each of the of the two factors, Resources factor and Management factor, respectively.

The Past Performance Team will conduct a structured past performance assessment that examines an offeror's relevant present and past work record to determine its ability to perform what is promised in the proposal. Each offeror will be required to submit a past performance volume containing performance history information in accordance with the below requirements, including history of small business utilization in accordance with FAR 15.304(c)(3)(ii). Additionally, an evaluation of the history of small business utilization on previous contracts, as required by DFARS 215.305(a)(2), will be performed and will influence the past performance confidence assessment.

The Contract Team will evaluate Factor 4 Small Business. The team will evaluate the offerors Small Business Participation and Subcontracting Plan submittals for the extent that the plan addresses DMEAs small business objective in maximizing small business opportunities through its recommended small business subcontracting and participation goals and to determine the soundness of the approach to meeting those percentages.

The solicitation will also include a notice to offerors that, pursuant to FAR 15.306 (c)(2), the contracting officer may also 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.

(b) The evaluation criteria for this acquisition are delineated by factors and by subfactors. The factors to be applied in this evaluation are: (1) Past Performance, (2) Resources, (3) Management, and (4) Small Business. The Government will award to offerors it determines provides the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of the following four (4) factors:

(1) Factor 1: Past Performance

(2) Factor 2: Resources

(3) Factor 3: Management

(4) Factor 4: Small Business

(c) The Past Performance Factor (1) is the most important factor followed by Factors (2) and (3) being of equal importance. Factor (2) is Resources and Management factor is (3) respectively in the list above. Factor (4) Small Business is the least important. Factor 1 is weighted more heavily than factors 2 and 3 combined. Within each factor, all stated subfactors are of equal importance. Subfactors are identified within each factor section, but the subfactors will not be rated separately. Criteria will be evaluated at the factor level based on the assessed strengths, weaknesses, risks and deficiencies of each offeror’s proposal.

(d) It is anticipated that multiple contract awards will be made as a result of the solicitation. In accordance with FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii) the Government will not include price or cost as an evaluation factor for award and as such intends to make an award to each and all qualifying offerors as per FAR 15.304(c)(1)(i)(A)(3). A qualifying offeror means an offeror that is determined to be a responsible source, submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and the contracting officer has no reason to believe would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing ( 10 U.S.C. 3206(c)(4). The solicitation will also include a notice to offerors https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title10-section3206&num=0&edition=prelim that, pursuant to FAR 15.306 (c)(2), the contracting officer may also 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 Offerors must 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 may result in the offeror being removed from consideration for award.

5.0 EVALUATION RATINGS

(a) An adjectival rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable will be issued depending on whether an offeror’s submittal meets the minimum criteria. The minimum required active facility clearance required for contract award is a Secret Facility Clearance. The minimum requirement for DCMA Approve Business systems are Accounting System, Cost Estimating System, MMAS, and Property Management System.

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

(b) Factors that have subfactors will be rated at an overall factor-level rating.

(c) Combined Technical/Risk Rating Evaluation. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. These ratings will apply to both Resources factor and Management factor. In order to achieve the technical/risk rating, the proposal must achieve at least all the mandatory characteristics identified for that rating. The combined technical/risk ratings will be based off the ratings listed in the table below.

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Color Rating

Adjective Rating Description

BLUE

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, 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 or significant 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 is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

(d) Past Performance Relevancy and Confidence Assessment Rating Evaluation. The Past Performance Team will conduct a structured past performance assessment that examines an offeror's relevant present and past work record to determine its ability to perform what is promised in the proposal. The past performance assessment will consider the number and severity of problems, the effectiveness of any corrective actions taken, and the offeror's overall work record and will be applied at the factor level. Potential sources of performance data are government sources such as tailored questionnaires and non-government sources that span beyond the proposal. There are two aspects of past performance that will be evaluated for this effort. The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is determining the relevancy of the past performance. An evaluation will be completed regarding recent efforts accomplished by the offeror and their relevancy to the ATSP5 effort. The criteria to establish what is recent and relevant is stated in the solicitation at Section L, and IFPP 3.1(c). The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is determining the Government’s confidence assessment. An evaluation of the past performance information will be completed in order to determine how confident the Government believes the offeror will be in performing the ATSP5 effort.

Additionally, an evaluation of the history of Small Business Utilization on previous contracts, as required by DFARS 215.305(a)(2), will be performed and will influence the past performance confidence assessment. The past performance relevancy and confidence assessment ratings will be based off the rating scale below.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Description

VERY

RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT

RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved little to none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Performance Confidence Assessments Ratings Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NEUTRAL

CONFIDENCE

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

LIMITED

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

(e) Small Business Rating Evaluation

The SSEB shall evaluate the offerors Small Business Participation and Subcontracting Plan submittals for the extent that the plan addresses DMEAs small business objective in maximizing small business opportunities through its recommended small business subcontracting and participation goals and to determine the soundness of the approach to meeting those percentages. Assessment ratings listed in the table below. The evaluation team will be only assigning adjectival ratings as detailed below.

Color Rating

Adjective Rating Description

BLUE

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

PURPLE

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

GREEN

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

YELLOW

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

RED Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

(f) Cost/Price Evaluation. In accordance with FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii) price or cost will not be evaluated.

6.0 PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

6.1 Factor 1: Past Performance

(a) The Past Performance Team will conduct a structured past performance assessment that examines an offeror's relevant present and past work record to determine its ability to perform what is promised in the proposal. The past performance assessment will consider the number and severity of problems, the effectiveness of any corrective actions taken, and the offeror's overall work record and will be applied at the proposal level as single ratings of relevance and confidence. Potential sources of performance data are Government sources such as tailored questionnaires and non-government sources that span beyond the proposal. There are two aspects of past performance that will be evaluated for this effort. The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is determining the relevancy of the past performance. An evaluation will be completed regarding recent efforts accomplished by the offeror and their relevancy to the ATSP5 effort. The criteria to establish what is recent and relevant is stated in the solicitation at IFPP 3.1(c). The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is determining the Government’s confidence assessment. An evaluation of the past performance information will be completed in order to determine the Government’s confidence of the offeror in the performance of the ATSP5 effort. Additionally, an evaluation of the history of small business utilization on previous contracts, as required by DFARS 215.305(a)(2), will be performed and will influence the past performance confidence assessment. DMEA may use data provided by each offeror in this volume as well as data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance.

Due to the time sensitive nature of the DMEA mission, emphasis is placed on recent experience. Experience must be less than five (5) years old.

7.0 TECHNICAL FACTORS

7.1 Factor 2: Resources

(a) The offeror must demonstrate that sufficient Resources are available for each of the DMEA mission-based evaluation factors. Prime offerors may elect to team or subcontract with other companies to accomplish the PWS requirements. If teaming/subcontracting is proposed, the prime offeror shall provide adequate evidence of the agreement, if one exists, for DMEA to determine the exact nature of the relationship. Paraphrasing the PWS will be unacceptable.

(b) The subfactors (all of equal importance) to be evaluated in this factor are the following:

(1) Subfactor 2.1: Analysis/Studies Resources

(2) Subfactor 2.2: Integrated Circuit Development Resources

(3) Subfactor 2.3: Board/Module Development Resources

(4) Subfactor 2.4: Subsystem/System Development Resources

(5) Subfactor 2.5: Hardware/Software System Development Resources

(c) A rating will be assigned at the factor level. Subfactors will be evaluated for significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks, and uncertainties and a combined technical/risk rating will be assigned to the overall factor based on sub-factor assessments. If an offeror does not submit information for one of the subfactors that subfactor will be assessed with significant weakness.

7.1.1 Subfactor 2.1: Analysis/Studies Resources

(a) The response must identify adequate resources to support all of the cited technologies. The response must identify the source of the resources for this subfactor (e.g. currently in-house, planned in-house, partnership/joint venture, team member, subcontractor, vendor, etc.).

(b) The Offeror’s proposed resources that are currently in-house capabilities will be viewed as more favorable.

(c) The response must demonstrate ability to provide technical oversight of and technical direction to all resources proposed for this subfactor.

(d) The proposed teaming or subcontracting arrangements for ATSP5 shall be evaluated in accordance with the Management subfactor 3.1, Program Organization. Proposed resources that are evaluated as not in-house may increase the assessed risk of this subfactor.

7.1.2 Subfactor 2.2: Integrated Circuit Development Resources

(a) The response must identify adequate resources to support all of the following development phases: design, simulation, fabrication, packaging/assembly, integration, and testing. The response must identify the source of the resources for this subfactor (e.g. currently in-house, planned in-house, partnership/joint venture, team member, subcontractor, vendor, etc.).

(b) The Offeror’s proposed resources that are currently in-house capabilities will be viewed as more favorable.

(c) The response must demonstrate ability to provide technical oversight of and technical direction to all resources proposed for this subfactor.

(d) The proposed teaming or subcontracting arrangements for ATSP5 shall be evaluated in accordance with the Management subfactor 3.1, Program Organization. Proposed resources that are evaluated as not in-house may increase the assessed risk of this subfactor.

7.1.3 Subfactor 2.3: Board/Module Development Resources

(a) The response must identify adequate resources to support all of the following development phases: design, simulation, fabrication, packaging/assembly, integration, and testing. The response must identify adequate resources (expertise, facilities and equipment) to support all of the cited development phases. The response must identify the source of the resources for this subfactor (e.g. currently in-house, planned in-house, partnership/joint venture, team member, subcontractor, vendor, etc.).

(b) The Offeror’s proposed resources that are currently in-house capabilities will be viewed as more favorable.

(c) The response must demonstrate ability to provide technical oversight of and technical direction to all resources proposed for this subfactor.

(d) The proposed teaming or subcontracting arrangements for ATSP5 shall be evaluated in accordance with the Management subfactor 3.1, Program Organization. Proposed resources that are evaluated as not in-house may increase the assessed risk of this subfactor.

7.1.4 Subfactor 2.4: Subsystem/System Development Resources

(a) The response must identify adequate resources to support all of the following development phases: design, prototyping, integration, testing, and production. The response must identify adequate resources (expertise, facilities and equipment) to support all of the cited development phases. The response must identify the source of the resources for this subfactor (e.g. currently in-house, planned in-house, partnership/joint venture, team member, subcontractor, vendor, etc.).

(b) The Offeror’s proposed resources that are currently in-house capabilities will be viewed as more favorable.

(c) The response must demonstrate ability to provide technical oversight of and technical direction to all resources proposed for this subfactor.

(d) The proposed teaming or subcontracting arrangements for ATSP5 shall be evaluated in accordance with the Management subfactor 3.1, Program Organization. Proposed resources that are evaluated as not in-house may increase the assessed risk of this subfactor.

7.1.5 Subfactor 2.5: Hardware/Software System Development Resources

(a) The response must identify adequate resources to support all of the following development phases: design, prototyping, integration, testing, and production. The response must identify adequate resources (expertise, facilities and equipment) to support all of the cited development phases. The response must identify the source of the resources for this subfactor (e.g. currently in-house, planned in-house, partnership/joint venture, team member, subcontractor, vendor, etc.).

(b) The Offeror’s proposed resources that are currently in-house capabilities will be viewed as more favorable.

(c) The response must demonstrate ability to provide technical oversight of and technical direction to all resources proposed for this subfactor.

(d) The proposed teaming or subcontracting arrangements for ATSP5 shall be evaluated in accordance with the Management subfactor 3.1, Program Organization. Proposed resources that are evaluated as not in-house may increase the assessed risk of this subfactor.

8.3 Factor 3: Management

(a) The offeror’s history of successfully managing myriad technical requirements to success is of value to DMEA.

The offeror must demonstrate a comprehensive management approach with high-level corporate management visibility and authority to its ATSP5 program. The offeror must demonstrate a management approach that will consistently allow for rapid proposal preparation and facilitate task order award within the time periods requested.

The offeror must demonstrate an approach to rapidly and seamlessly access the resources that are required to accomplish awarded tasks. The offeror must demonstrate an approach that can effectively support unexpected and quick reaction requirements. The offeror must demonstrate sufficient authority to successfully interface with DMEA to facilitate communications, issue resolution, contract actions, data delivery, and material management during the course of the ATSP5 performance.

(b) Offerors may elect to team or subcontract with other companies to accomplish the ATSP5 requirements. If teaming/subcontracting is proposed, the prime offeror shall provide adequate evidence of the agreement, if one exists, for DMEA to determine the exact nature of the relationship. Paraphrasing the PWS will be unacceptable.

(c)The subfactors (all of equal importance) to be evaluated in this item are the following:

(1) Subfactor 3.1: Program Organization

(2) Subfactor 3.2: Task Implementation Approach

(3) Subfactor 3.3: DCMA Approved Business Systems

(4) Subfactor 3.4: Facility Clearances

(d) A rating will be assigned at the factor level. Subfactors will be evaluated for significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks, and uncertainties and a combined technical/risk rating will be assigned to the overall Technical factor based on sub-factor assessments. If an offeror does not submit information for one of the subfactors that subfactor will be assessed with significant weakness.

8.3.1 Subfactor 3.1: Program Organization

(a) The response must define a sound program organization that should be complete, flexible, cost-effective, and efficient. The proposed organization must fit the technical resources the offeror proposed in factor 2. The organization should have clear and appropriate lines of authority in the corporate organization to obtain and manage task resources, to obtain contractual document signature, and which connect the contracts personnel with the program/technical personnel.

(b) A program manager with technical, schedule, and cost control over the program is preferred.

(c) The offeror’s response must describe how performing organizations proposed in factor 1 would be selected for each task and managed during the life of the task. The selection process should be flexible, cost-effective and efficient. The offeror’s response must describe the relative economic relationships between each of the entities, including burdens, overheads, handling charges, sales distribution, and profit distribution, etc., as they relate to potential ATSP5 tasks. These relationships should be appropriate, cost-effective and efficient. The program organization should minimize the number of entities passing on charges to the Government. The offeror’s response must demonstrate that the program organization is capable of managing the normal problems that are associated with programs of this nature with minimal risk to DMEA.

(d) The offeror’s response that describes the program organization’s business development approach, a marketing strategy that provides for high corporate and program visibility of ATSP5, and a clear allocation of resources to support that strategy is preferred.

(e) An offeror’s response that describes a program manager with technical, schedule, and cost control over the program and a marketing strategy that provides for high corporate and program visibility of ATSP5 and a clear allocation of resources to support that strategy is highly preferred.

(f) If electing to team with other companies, the offeror’s response must provide clear delineation of responsibilities and authority among the companies and must show the capability of the offeror/prime contractor leadership to provide adequate management oversight of and direction to team members. If inadequate prime contractor leadership for oversight or direction is proposed, then the teaming will be evaluated as a subcontract relationship and may affect the technical/risk rating of the subfactors of factors 2 and 3.

8.3.2 Subfactor 3.2: Task Implementation Approach

(a) Task Implementation Approach.

(1) The response must define a sound task implementation approach/process that is complete and effective.

The response must identify the steps necessary to process a new opportunity through award of a task order.

(2) The response must identify who is responsible and who has the authority to approve/commit the offeror throughout the identified steps.

(3) The response must identify the time frames required to achieve each step in the process. The response must demonstrate a normal task order proposal preparation process that is achievable within 30 calendar days.

(4) Responses that clearly show that the plan will minimize the time and effort required to process task orders are preferred.

(5) Plans that minimize the time and effort required to process task orders utilizing existing processes, not “re-inventing the wheel” (e.g. Forward Pricing Rate Recommendations/Agreements (FPRR/A), application of lean six sigma, standardized task order proposal documents, streamlined supply chain procedures, etc.), are highly preferred.

8.3.3 Subfactor 3.3: DCMA Approved Business Systems

(a) The response must identify the status of the organization’s DCMA Reviewed Business Systems and provide the Systems Status Date and Next Review Date in the table below.

System Status (approved/unapproved)

System Status Date Next Review Date

Accounting Cost Estimating Material Management and Accounting System

(MMAS)

Property Management Purchasing System

EVMS

(b) The minimum required DCMA Approved Business Systems for contract award are Accounting System, Cost Estimating System, MMAS, and Property Management System. Offerors with additional approved DCMA Businesses Systems such as Purchasing System and EVMS will be evaluated to have a strength for this portion of the factor.

8.3.4 Subfactor 3.4: Facility Clearances

(a) The response must identify the level of the organization’s Facility Clearances to the highest active level. Facility clearance(s) will not be accepted via a subcontracted arrangement for evaluation purposes.

(b) The minimum required active facility clearance required for contract award is a Secret Facility Clearance.

Offerors with active facility clearances higher than Secret will be evaluated to have a strength for this portion of the factor.

9.0 SMALL BUSINESS FACTOR

9.1 Factor 4: Small Business

(a) Collection and Reporting. The response must identify the process of accomplishing monthly collection and reporting to the DMEA Contracting Office of subcontracting dollars.

(b) Small Business Utilization. The response must identify the small business participation goal percentages of the total acquisition and the plan for meeting those percentages. The team will evaluate the offerors small business participation submittals for the extent that the plan addresses DMEAs small business objective in maximizing small business opportunities through its recommended small business participation goals and to determine the soundness of the approach to meeting those percentages.

Small Business Subcontracting Plan

(c) Small Business Subcontracting Plan. [Not applicable for small businesses]. The offeror shall provide a small business subcontracting plan in accordance with clause 52.219-9.

The response must identify the small business subcontracting goals and detail the process to manage, implement, and integrate the entire team to ensure successful performance of contract requirements. The response must identify the small business subcontracting goal percentages of the total acquisition and the plan for meeting those percentages.

The team will evaluate the offerors small business subcontracting submittals for the extent that the plan addresses DMEAs small business objective in maximizing small business opportunities through its recommended small business subcontracting goals and to determine the soundness of the approach to meeting those percentages.

10.0 COST/PRICE

In accordance with FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii) price or cost will not be evaluated at the IDIQ level.

11.0 CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

(a) Offerors that do not provide all the relevant documentation as required by IFPP 6.0 will be determined to be non-responsive.