Attachment 2 - Evaluation Factors.pdf

Interworking Function

NB671000-20-01817

EVALUATION CRITERIA and BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government intends to award a purchase order resulting from this solicitation to the responsible contractor whose quotation conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous and represents the best value to the Government, price and other factors considered, utilizing simplified acquisition procedures of FAR Part 13. The Government will not use the formal source selection procedures described in FAR part 15. The Government will evaluate quotations utilizing the procedures of FAR 13.106-2 Evaluation of quotations or offers. The Government will consider price and other technical non-price factors described in this solicitation and will conduct a comparative evaluation of the benefits between price and the other technical non-price factors of each quotation as well as a comparative evaluation between quotations in order to determine the quotation that is most advantageous and represents the best value. Therefore, the Government may award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or the highest technically rated Offeror.

Per the provision 52.212-1 (g) Contract award contained within this solicitation; the Government intends to evaluate quotations and issue a purchase order based on the initial quotations received. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial quotation should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to request revised quotations from, or negotiate final purchase order terms with, one or more, but not all, Offerors if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. However, the Contracting Officer will not establish a competitive range, conduct discussions, or otherwise use the formal source selection procedures described in FAR part 15.306. The Government may reject any or all quotations, if such action is in the public interest, or issue a purchase order to other than the Offeror with the lowest priced quotation or other than the Offeror with the highest technically rated quotation.

Technical / non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

However, price will become more important as the degree of equality among technical non-price evaluations increase. The Government will evaluate the following factors: (1) Technical Approach, (2) Schedule, (3) Past Performance, and (4) Price. The evaluation factors in order of importance follow:

1. Technical Capability: Most important

2. Schedule: Important

3. Past Performance: More important than Price but less important than Schedule.

4. Price: Important, but less important than Technical, Schedule and Past performance. The importance of price in the evaluation will increase with the degree of equality among quotations of the non-price factors.

Options: The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

The Government requests commercial item solutions to meet this requirement.

I. FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

Contractors shall submit a Technical Approach Narrative which may include charts, graphs, tables and drawings. The Technical Approach is defined as the contractor’s demonstrating a clear understanding of the statement of work (SOW) and the degree of the proposed implementation is technically sound and able to successfully conduct the requirements of the contract. The technical approach shall clearly describe, in sufficient detail, the contractor’s approach to successfully fulfilling the minimum technical requirements identified in this RFQ. Technical capability places an emphasis on how well the proposed item meets or exceeds the specifications. Focus will be placed on the following areas of importance for capability/performance.

1. 3GPP standards compliance 3GPP release 16 provides the definition of the interworking function and the mission-critical voice, video and data servers. This definition is expected to be complete in June 2020. The Offeror must provide a list of current IWF capabilities and a schedule that documents all 3GPP IWF features which will be supported and any not to be supported. Plans for working with 3GPP to fix deficiencies in 3GPP specifications shall be addressed.

2. TIA 102 standards compliance Project 25 (P25) is a suite of standards for digital mobile radio communications which includes the ISSI interface. Completeness of the implementation of the ISSI interface to the most recent TIA 102 documents must be detailed in the proposal. The Offeror will provide a schedule which documents all ISSI features to be supported and any not to be supported.

3. Support to PSCR

a. New Features: The Offeror shall be responsive to requests for features during the life of the support contract. The Offeror shall respond to NIST requests for features that are not yet implemented and are 3GPP standard compliant.

b. Installation, Integration, and Operation: The contractor is required to have a high level of knowledge and expertise in the operation of the equipment. The contractor shall install the equipment and ensure its functionality. The contractor shall provide training to PSCR personnel for full configuration and operation of the equipment.

The contractor shall provide continued support after installation for operation and configuration of the equipment throughout the period of performance of the contract.

c. Interoperability: The IWF will be connected to products produced by other vendors (e.g., 3GPP core, LMR system, production IWF). The contractor shall work with PSCR and other PSCR vendors to resolve interoperability issues over the life of the contract. The Offeror shall provide a plan on how interoperability issues will be resolved.

d. Responsiveness: The level and timeliness of Offeror support during PSCR working hours will be a factor in the selection.

4. Ease of use and configuration The interface for operating and configuring the IWF and tester will be a factor in the selection. The ability to use a graphical user interface (GUI) to perform all feature manipulations is a plus. The necessity of using a command line interface (CLI) is a minus.

Limiting the number of mouse clicks to perform an operation is preferable.

5. Debug capabilities The contractor shall debug interconnection issues and operational issues throughout the period of performance of this contract. The contractor’s ability to debug interconnection and operational issues will be a factor in the selection.

Submittal Requirements: Offeror shall submit a narrative which clearly identifies the proposed system capability and performance standards per the specification requirements. The narrative shall not exceed twelve (12) single-sided pages (or six (6) double-sided pages) in total.

Basis of Evaluation: The proposed system will be evaluated in terms of meeting or exceeding the capability / performance per the technical requirements.

II. FACTOR 2 - SCHEDULE

Submittal Requirements:

Offeror will submit a schedule which clearly identifies:

1. Manufacture time.

2. Delivery date.

3. Installation time.

Schedule information shall not exceed one (1) single-sided page in total.

Basis of Evaluation: The proposed schedule will be evaluated in terms of meeting or exceeding the capability / performance per the specifications.

III. FACTOR 3 - PAST PERFORMANCE

The Offeror shall submit a maximum of three (3) projects which best demonstrate the Offeror’s past performance on relevant projects. For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFQ (i.e.: unique features, technical capabilities).

A relevant project is defined as a project that is similar in size, scope and complexity to that of the RFQ. Project relevancy will be assessed based on a graduated scale. Projects submitted for the Contractor must be completed within the past two (2) years of the date of issuance of this

RFQ.

Past performance will place an emphasis on:

1. Performance: Failure rate and downtime.

2. Nature and extent of system failures: Vacuum, instrumentation, software, and detectors.

3. Schedule: Compliance with delivery deadlines.

Submittal Requirements: Offeror’s shall submit a Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) Evaluation Report for each relevant project submitted for Factor 3.

If a completed CPARS Evaluation Report is available for a project, the Offeror shall submit it with the quotation.

Offerors may provide any information on problems encountered and the corrective actions taken on projects submitted. Offerors may also address any adverse past performance issues.

Explanations shall not exceed four (4) single-sided pages (or two (2) double-sided pages) in total.

The Government reserves the right to contact references for verification or additional information. The Government’s inability to contact any of the Offeror’s clients / references or the references’ unwillingness to provide the information requested may affect the Government’s evaluation of this factor.

Basis of Evaluation: The assessment of the Offeror’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the Offeror’s probability of successfully meeting the requirements of the RFQ.

This past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in regard to the RFQ requirement. This subjective evaluation focuses on how well the Offeror performed on relevant projects submitted as well as Past Performance on other projects currently documented in known sources. More emphasis will be placed on more relevant projects. In addition to the relevant projects submitted, the Government reserves the right to obtain more information for use in the Evaluation. Evaluation of past performance is a subjective evaluation of how relevant a recent contract effort was in regard to the RFQ requirements and how well the Offeror performed on relevant contracts.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) using all CAGE / DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company / subsidiary / affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s quotation, inquiries of owner representative(s), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror. The Government reserves the right to contact any other source of information that may have knowledge or information on an Offeror’s relevant past performance history.

The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Offeror’s performance. This evaluation is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination.

Offerors lacking relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably in past performance but will receive a Neutral rating.

VI. FACTOR 4 - PRICE

Submittal Requirements: Offerors shall submit a firm fixed price (FFP) quotation in US currency. In addition to the summary price quotation on the Pricing Schedule, the price quotation shall include complete support documentation which clearly identifies major materials, components and services along with their associated prices. The price quotation documentation shall clearly substantiate how the total price was derived. In addition, the Offeror’s price quotation shall also identify any requested payment schedule terms. All payment schedule terms shall be directly tied to contract deliverables and/or major contract milestones.

Basis of Evaluation: The Government will evaluate the price quotation using price analysis techniques to determine fairness, reasonableness and realism in relation to the technical solution.

Price analysis will be conducted in accordance with the FAR, Commerce Acquisition Manual and any other provision within this RFQ. The analysis may include information from a Government auditing agency, Government technical personnel, or other sources. If a price is disproportionately lower than other competitive prices or significantly unbalanced, the price may be deemed unrealistic. Payment schedule terms more favorable to the Government may be evaluated more favorably. A determination will be made by the Contracting Officer based upon the information provided. The Government reserves the right to ask for any additional price related information from the Offeror in order to determine a price fair and reasonable.