EVALUATION AWARD APPROACH SUMMARY.pdf

ATTACHMENT TO SSN

Multiple Award Contract (MAC)

Evaluation/Award Approach Summary

The Government seeks to award to the offerors who give the Army the greatest confidence that they will best meet the objectives and requirements of the FMT PL. Awards will be made to each and all qualifying offerors. FAR Part 2.101 defines

“qualifying offeror” as 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. 2305(a)(3)(D)). There will be no cost/price evaluation for FMT PL

Base ID/IQ awards IAW FAR Part 15.304(c)(1)(ii).

To be considered for award under FMT PL, a “qualifying offeror” is an offeror who:

1) is determined to be a responsible source IAW FAR Part 9, more details will be released in solicitation;

2) conforms to the requirements of the solicitation;

3) the Contracting Officer (KO) has no reason to believe would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing at the TO level;

4) is rated Acceptable for Factor 1 (Technical);

5) is rated Acceptable for Factor 2 (Management); and

6) is assessed with Acceptable for Factor 3 (Past Performance).

7) submits a proposal that falls within the competitive range established by the KO, if established

This acquisition will utilize the FAR Part 15 Source Selection Process to make an assessment for award decisions. The

Government reserves the right to award no contracts at all, if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines it is in the

Government’s best interest.

Full and Open Delivery Orders (DO), issued IAW FAR 16, will be available for competition among all prime ID/IQ contract holders, while other DOs will be reserved for small business prime ID/IQ contract holders. A modified Rule of Two will be applied based on the findings of the pre-RFP market research for each DO. If there are two qualified and competitive small businesses that demonstrate the required past performance, qualifications, and capabilities to perform the work, the delivery

CUI

order will be set aside for small businesses. There will be no predetermined DO values limiting the small business set-aside decision. Listed below are the Evaluation Factors, corresponding submission requirements and evaluation approach.

Factor Submission Requirements

Evaluation Approach

Technic al o Offeror shall provide a Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP) prepared IAW

DI-SESS-81785A.

The SEMP shall address the offeror's engineering processes and technical management processes, as well as adoption and application of emerging Systems Engineering initiatives and practices that the offeror is currently using, has used in the past, or that will be used in performance of work for the FMT

PL ID/IQ.

▪ Maximum 20 pages o Offeror shall provide a

Configuration Management Plan (CMP) prepared IAW

DI-SESS-80858D.

The CMP should describe the offeror’s change management process to identify, track, and implement modifications into the training system to maintain concurrency with tactical platforms, correct deficiencies, The risk assessment will include the offeror’s self-identified risks and proposed mitigations (if applicable). The Government may also identify and consider risks not identified by an offeror. The definitions for each risk assessment level are as follows:

• Low – Proposal contains no weaknesses or contains weakness(es) which present a low probability of negatively affecting performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

• Moderate - Proposal contains weakness(es) which may present a modest probability of negatively affecting performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

• High - Proposal contains weakness(es) which may present a high probability of negatively affecting performance. Contractor is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Evaluation Approach enhance functionality or training efficiencies, and to address sustainability issues.

The CMP shall address processes to transition modifications from a development baseline into a released baseline. The CMP shall describe the offeror’s change control processes and the tools that will be used to maintain CM for a training system.

▪ Maximum 20 pages

Manage ment

This factor shall describe the offeror’s management approach that facilitates the completion of tasks while satisfying technical, cost, and schedule objectives.

The proposal shall also address the following:

• The approach for collaborating with the Government and other FMT PL contractors and the management of offeror subcontractors, if applicable.

Risk definitions for each risk assessment are provided above.

Evaluation Approach

• The process for acquiring and managing the resources necessary to complete tasks under any awarded DOs.

• The process for developing Integrated Management Schedules and the metrics to be used to measure progress on specific tasks and the overall program effort.

o Offeror shall provide a Risk Management Plan (RMP) IAW DI-

MGMT-81808

▪ Maximum 10 pages o Offeror shall provide a

Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP)

IAW DI-QCIC-81794A

▪ Maximum 10 pages

Evaluation Approach

Past Perform ance o Offeror shall provide Past Performance Information from a maximum of three (3) relevant contracts with at least 12 months of performance that are either active or have been completed within five (5) years preceding the solicitation

▪ Maximum 20 pages total for all three (3) relevant contracts

As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the offeror’s past work record, offerors will receive one of the ratings described in the table below:

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown

Unacceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

The Government will use the following matrix as a guide to assess how the offeror’s past performance is relevant to the Technical and Program Management Factors for maintenance training systems.

Maintenance training systems includes desktop Diagnostic Troubleshooting Trainers (DTTs), Part Task Trainers (PTTs) and Hands-On Trainers (HOTs) for Federal agencies and commercial customers.

Evaluation Approach

In making the quality assessment, the Government will review Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) and/or CPARs, as well as other relevant information available to the Government (e.g., interviews). The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Relevancy Description Magnitude Factor 1: Technical

COMPLEXITY/SCOPE

Factor 2: Program Management

COMPLEXITY/SCOPE

Very Relevant

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

Period of Performance for each referenced project is greater than 2 years

1) Contractor has performed and managed system engineering and configuration management processes, and hardware and software design and development on military or commercial maintenance training systems.

2) The scope of the contractor’s experience encompasses both desktop virtual training systems and physical fidelity hands-on training systems.

1) Contractor has managed a military maintenance training system or commercial maintenance training system program that includes all of the following: Program Management, Risk Management, and Quality Assurance.

2) The scope of the contractor’s experience encompasses both desktop virtual training systems and physical fidelity hands-on training systems.

Relevant

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

Period of Performance for each referenced project is greater than 1.5 years

1) Contractor has performed and managed system engineering and configuration management processes, and hardware and software design and development on military or commercial training systems.

2) The scope of the contractor’s experience encompasses either desktop virtual training systems or physical fidelity hands-on training systems, or both.

1) Contractor has managed a military or commercial training system program to include all of the following: Program Management, Risk Management, and Quality Assurance.

2) The scope of the contractor’s experience encompasses either desktop virtual training systems or physical fidelity hands-on training systems, or both.

Somewhat Relevant

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

Period of Performance for each referenced project is greater than 1 year

1) Contractor has performed and managed system engineering and configuration management processes, or hardware design and development, or software design and development on military or commercial training systems, or on other military systems or applications (non-training).

2) The scope of the contractor’s experience encompasses desktop virtual training systems, physical fidelity hands-on training systems, non-training software applications, or non-training hardware/software integrated systems.

1) Contractor has managed a training system program (or other military system or application) to include all of the following: Program Management, Risk Management, and Quality Assurance.

2) The scope of the contractor’s experience encompasses either software applications or hardware/software integrated systems.

Evaluation Approach