Section M 8Feb10.docx

SECTION M

EVALUATION CRITERIA

February 08, 2010

1.0 Source Selection

(a) Basis for Contract Award. This acquisition will utilize Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. Award will be made to the technically acceptable Offeror with the lowest evaluated cost or price, which is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements. The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary by the Contracting Officer.

(b) Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government intends to award one Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract for the AN/TMQ-53 Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) Program. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

(c) Rejection of Unrealistic Offers. The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in cost when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

(d) Correction Potential of Proposals. The Government may consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency or uncertainty. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror's proposal not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

(e) Competitive Advantage from Use of GFP. The solicitation contains a description of all Government property that the Offeror will have access to on a rent-free basis. Use of Government property not already identified as part of this RFP is not authorized.

(f) Evaluation Methodology. Technical acceptability will be evaluated on all offers. The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable, Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable, or Unacceptable. Only those Offerors determined to be technically Acceptable or Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable will be considered to be in the competitive range. Next, the Government shall evaluate those proposals which were found to be within the competitive range for cost and price reasonableness, balance, and realism. Discussions may be held at this time. Proposals which are found to be technically Acceptable following the conclusion of discussions, if held, will be listed from lowest to highest price based on the total evaluated price. Award will be made to the lowest evaluated priced proposal that is found to be technically Acceptable.

2.0 Evaluation Factors and Sub-Factors

2.1 Factor 1 - Technical

(a) Factor 1 – Technical, shall be rated as follows:

Acceptable – The proposal meets specified minimum requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance.

Reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable – The proposal does not clearly meet some specified minimum requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance, but there is reason to believe that through minor revisions, an acceptable proposal could result. For award without discussions these proposals are considered “unacceptable.”

Unacceptable – The proposal fails to meet specified minimum requirements. Proposals with an unacceptable determination are not awardable and will not be evaluated further.

(b) Technical evaluation provides an assessment of the Offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s requirements. If the Government determines the technical proposal fails to meet specified minimum requirements, no other factors will be evaluated. The PCO will notify Offerors of decision to declare them technically unacceptable.

2.1.1 Sub-Factor #1: Technical Approach

2.1.1.1 Levels of Certification (C): IAW PWS Sections 1.6 and 3.1 The Government will verify validity and currency of SEI-CMMI Level III or higher; and ISO 9000/9001 certification.

2.1.1.2 Modification-Integration Test Plans Process – Systems Engineering (C): IAW PWS Paragraphs 3.2.7.4 – 3.2.7.17

(a) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s actual Integration Test Plans and Test Reports to verify examples reflect competence on similar size and complexity system as a Tactical Deployable Weather System (TDWS) (e.g., AN/TMQ-53).

(b) The Government will validate Integration Test Plans and Test Reports, as part of Systems Engineering, to ensure it demonstrates the modification was successfully integrated.

(c) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Systems Engineering process plan to ensure it meets all elements of the CET.

2.1.1.3 Technical Orders (NC): IAW PWS Section 4.1, Paragraphs 4.1.1 – 4.1.8

(a) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed methodology to ensure approach thoroughly explains distribution process and addresses global distribution.

(b) The Government will ensure electronic technical manual is provided.

2.1.1.4 Computer Based Familiarization Materials (Training) (NC): IAW PWS Section 4.2, Paragraph 4.2.1

(a) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed methodology to ensure approach thoroughly explains distribution process and addresses global distribution.

(b) The Government will ensure electronic CBT is provided.

2.1.2 Sub- Factor #2: Management Approach

2.1.2.1 Transition Plan from Incumbent (C): IAW PWS Section 3.2.1

(a) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Transition Plan to ensure plan does not exceed 30 days.

(b) The Government will evaluate realism as it relates to timeframes proposed to perform the tasks.

(c) The Government will evaluate the transition plan to ensure that it provides a level of detail and supporting documentation to demonstrate that each task can be accomplished with the resources proposed.

2.1.2.2 Integration Master Plan (C): IAW PWS Section 3.2.3 Paragraphs 3.2.3.1 – 3.2.3.8

(a) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Integrated Master Plan to ensure that it provides a level of detail and supporting documentation to demonstrate that each task can be accomplished with the resources proposed.

(b) The Government will evaluate the Integrated Master Plan to ensure Offeror evidences relevant and recent experience in integration, sustainment and logistic support.

(c) The Government will evaluate the Integrated Master Plan to ensure it includes the organizational chart, retention of qualified employee plan, plan to support program reviews, appropriate acknowledgements, and methodology to establish and sustain appropriate OEM relationships, and evidence of recent experience in integration, sustainment and logistics support.

2.1.2.3 Configuration Management Plan (C): IAW PWS Section 3.2.7 Paragraphs 3.2.7.15 – 3.2.7.17

(a) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Configuration Management Plan to ensure that it provides for configuration control of the system hardware, software and documentation.

(b) The Government will evaluate the Configuration Management Plan to ensure Offeror evidences relevant and recent experience in configuration management.

2.1.3 Sub-Factor #3: Experience Approach (3.2.1.3 in Section L)

2.1.3.1 Experience

The Government will verify the evidence provided by the Offeror for the elements listed in Section L meets requirements.

(a) Logistic Maintenance Supply Management (C): IAW PWS Section 3.2.5, Paragraphs 3.2.5.1 – 3.2.5.8

1) The Government will evaluate evidence provided to ensure it reflects experience in using core personnel to maintain a database that tracks part numbers.

2) The Government will evaluate evidence provided to ensure it reflects experience in using core personnel to supply spares.

3) The Government will evaluate evidence provided to ensure it meets the 1 year experience requirement.

(b) Global Shipping/Customs Experience (C): IAW PWS Section 3.2.5, Paragraphs 3.2.5.9 – 3.2.5.15

1) The Government will evaluate evidence provided to ensure it reflects experience in using core personnel to ship highly technical, fragile components to remote locations, such as forward operating bases.

2) The Government will evaluate evidence provided to ensure it reflects experience in compliance with necessary Customs and State Department directives/procedures to prevent loss or delays of shipments to OCONUS sites.

3) The Government will evaluate evidence provided to ensure it meets the 1 year experience requirement.

(c) Contractor Maintenance Logistics Helpdesk Support (e.g., AFWA REMEDY Action Request System (ARS) Database (C): IAW PWS Section 3.2.4, Paragraphs 3.2.4.1 – 3.2.4.13

1) The Government will evaluate evidence provided to ensure it reflects experience in using core personnel to maintain a helpdesk.

2) The Government will evaluate evidence provided to ensure it meets the 1 year experience requirement.

(d) Support of Active Military Operations (C): IAW PWS entirety

1) The Government will evaluate evidence provided to ensure it reflects experience in using core personnel to provide support during a contingency.

2) The Government will evaluate evidence provided to ensure it meets the 1 year experience requirement.

(e) Line Replaceable Unit (LRU) Repair (NC): IAW PWS Section 3.2.6, Paragraphs 3.2.6.1 – 3.2.6.8

1) The Government will evaluate evidence provided to ensure it reflects experience in using core personnel to manage a repair process, whether repair is done in house or contracted to another source.

2) The Government will evaluate evidence provided to ensure it meets the 1 year experience requirement.

(f) DoD Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process (DIACAP) (formerly Defense Information Technology Security Certification and Accreditation Process (DITSCAP)(C): IAW PWS Section 3.2.7, Paragraphs 3.2.7.20 – 3.2.7.34

1) The Government will evaluate the samples provided for currency and compliance with DODI 8510.01.

2) The Government will evaluate the proposal to ensure all requested material was provided.

3) The Government will evaluate evidence provided to ensure it reflects experience meets 1 year experience requirement.

(g) Integration Software Support Requirements (C): IAW PWS Section 6, Table VI-4, Section 3.2.7, Paragraphs 3.2.7.13 and 3.2.7.19

1) The Government will evaluate the proposal to ensure evidence reflects a successful software integration effort.

2) The Government will evaluate evidence provided to ensure it reflects experience meets 1 year experience requirement.

2.1.4 Sub-Factor #4: Quality Control Approach

2.1.4.1 Reliability and Maintainability (R/M) Plan (C): IAW PWS Section 3.1, Paragraphs 3.1.1 – 3.1.6

(a) The Government will evaluate R/M plan to ensure it demonstrates experience with system and sensor component performance and maintainability applicable to a TDWS system.

(b) The Government will evaluate the proposal to verify that contractor has demonstrated corporate knowledge and experience to implement the plan using core personnel.

(c) The Government will evaluate the evidence provided to ensure it meets the 1 year experience with system reliability and maintainability.

(d) Government will evaluate the proposed quality control plan for completeness and accuracy.

2.2 Factor 2 – Cost and Pricing

(a) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Cost/Price Volume for price reasonableness, balance, realism of the Cost Rates, and unrealistically low costs or prices. A Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be developed for award purposes.

(b) Price Reasonableness – A price is reasonable when it provides the best value to the Government considering current market prices, and technical and functional capabilities of the Offeror. The Offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 (Proposal Analysis Techniques). Generally, adequate price competition will satisfy the criteria of price reasonableness. The proposed prices also will be compared with the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE).

(c) Balance - Cost and/or price analysis of the information in the Cost/Price Proposal volume will be used to determine if the prices (Cost Rates) for the proposed contract line items are balanced or unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable Total Evaluated Price, the price of one or more of the fully loaded rates, appear to be significantly over or under-stated. Per FAR 15.404-1(g)(3), if the Government determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government the proposal may be eliminated from the competition.

(d) Realism on Cost Rates - Cost realism analyses will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.403-1 (b), 15.403-3(a), and 15.404-1(d). Cost realism will be established by analysis of the costs submitted in the Cost/Price Volume to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; are realistic for the work to be performed; and are consistent with the methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal.

(e) Unrealistically Low Costs or Prices - Unrealistically low proposed costs or prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirement or the Offeror has made an unrealistic proposal.

(f) Total Evaluated Price (TEP) – The TEP is for evaluation purposes and will be the consideration in the award decision. The TEP will be developed for all ordering/pricing periods. The Government will compute the TEP based on the summation of the fixed price line items; Government selected Best Estimated Quantities for the applicable CLINs; and the quantified Cost Rates. The Cost Rates will be quantified using Government selected notional hours. The notional hours will not be disclosed to the Offerors until the final debriefings. The Offeror will complete the attached Excel Worksheet, “TMOS Pricing Worksheet.xlsx”. Included in the worksheet are Section B and four attachments which will be utilized to develop the TEP.

(g) Travel and other direct costs shall be under a Cost Reimbursable – No Fee CLIN and will not be evaluated as part of the proposal. The Government will establish a ceiling price for this CLIN on each Task/Delivery Order and shall verify that all travel is billed in accordance with the Joint Travel Regulations.

(h) Cost Rates for modifications to be performed under CLINs 0009, 1009, 2009, 3009, and 4009, will be negotiated in the basic contract and will be evaluated by the Government. Cost Rates will be utilized on future proposal submissions for task orders when the requirements are known. Labor hours and material will be evaluated and negotiated at time of issuance of each Task/Delivery Order.

(i) Transition to an organic provider (CLINs 1012, 2012, 3012, and 4012) will not be evaluated as part of the proposal. The Government will negotiate this effort with the Awardee and will award this effort on a subsequent Task/Delivery Order.

3.0 Source Selection Discussions

It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions; therefore, it is imperative that Offerors submit their best terms initially. However, if, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

4.0 Pre-Award Survey

The Government may conduct a pre-award survey (PAS) as part of source selection activities. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be used in determining each Offeror's capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation based on current capability observations.

5.0 Plant Visits

The Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) may conduct plant/site visits during the evaluation phase to gather information on the Offeror's potential for setting up a proficient help-desk engineering support team, examining the breadth/depth of resources that would be available to meet contract contingency requirements, evaluating the quality of support facilities/practices/ processes, or other areas that would be beneficial in evaluating the Offeror’s proposal and existing real world practices environment. If conducted, the results will be assessed under the applicable factors/subfactors and will be used to validate/confirm the Offeror's written proposal.

6.0 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

In addition to meeting the identified factors and sub-factors, in order for Offerors to be rated acceptable they are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements specifically stated in Section L and Section M to be eligible for contract award. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the complete solicitation may result in the Offeror being rated unacceptable and removed from consideration for award. Any exceptions to the solicitation’s terms and conditions must be fully explained and justified by the Offeror.

M - 7 (of 7)