SECTION_M.pdf

SECTION M

Evaluation Factors for Award

M-I - Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference

NOTICE: Pursuant to FAR 52.252-1, "SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE," the following provisions are incorporated herein by reference:

A. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (48 CFR CHAPTER 1) SOLICITATION

PROVISIONS: POC MAITLAND

PARAGRAPH TITLE DATE

B. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUPPLEMENT (48

CFR CHAPTER 2) SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

C. AIR FORCE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUPPLEMENT SOLICITATION

PROVISIONS:

D. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUPPLEMENT SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

M-II – Solicitation Provisions in Full Text

NOTICE: The following provisions are hereby incorporated in full text:

A. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (48 CFR CHAPTER 1) SOLICITATION

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/Regs/far2afmcfars/AF_AFMC/far/FAR52.246.doc#b522521

B. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUPPLEMENT (48

CFR CHAPTER 2) SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

C. AIR FORCE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUPPLEMENT SOLICITATION

D. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUPPLEMENT SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

E. ADMINISTRATIVE AND ONE-TIME USE PROVISIONS:

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

(a) Basis for Contract Award This is a best value full trade-off source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by AFFARS 5315, 3 May 2011; Mandatory Procedures MP5315.3, 4 May 11; and DoD Source Selection Procedures, 4 Mar 11. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall offer(s), based upon an integrated assessment of Technical Capability, Past Performance, Cost/Price and Small Business Submissions. Contract(s) may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements of this solicitation. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines the best value in accordance with the tradeoff criteria in section M002. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

(b) Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award up to two development/ production contracts after a full and open, best value full trade competition.

(c) Rejection of Unrealistic Offers The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, 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 will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any proposal. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/Regs/far2afmcfars/AF_AFMC/far/FAR15.DOC#s153 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/Regs/far2afmcfars/AF_AFMC/far/FAR15.DOC#s153

Government. If an aspect of an Offeror's proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

(e) Competitive Advantage from Use of GFP The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an Offeror's proposed use of Government-furnished property (GFP) by assessing the equivalent value (see FAR 45.201) of those resources as part of the offered price.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

1.1. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

1.1.1. Factor 1: Technical Capability

Subfactor 1: Architecture, System Design and Performance

Subfactor 2: Integrated Processes

Subfactor 3: Small Business (Acceptable/Unacceptable) Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Cost/Price

1.1.2. The evaluation will follow the published Air Force procedure as defined in AFFARS 5315, 3 May 2011; Mandatory Procedures MP5315.3, 4 May 2011; Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, 4 Mar 2011.

1.2. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

Technical Capability is approximately equal to Cost/Price. All evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price.

1.3. Factor 1: Technical Capability

1.3.1. The Technical Rating Evaluation process provides for two distinct but related assessments: Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings have equal impact for subfactors 1 and 2. Subfactor 3 will be evaluated as acceptable/unacceptable.

(a) Technical Rating. The Offeror’s technical solution will be rated separately from the risk associated with its technical approach. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Technical evaluations shall utilize the ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures 3.1.2.2.1.

(b) Technical Risk Rating. Assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Technical risk shall be rated using DoD Source Selection Procedures 3.1.2.2.2.

(c) Acceptable/Unacceptable. Table A-1 in Appendix A of the DoD Source Selection Procedures 4 Mar 2011:

Acceptable - Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable - Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

1.3.2 Subfactor 1: Architecture, System Design, and Performance

1.3.2.1. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Architecture, System Design, and projected Performance and assess whether they constitute a comprehensive solution that will satisfy the Government’s requirements as defined by the GTRD.

1.3.2.2. The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the Offeror’s technical approach and allocation to the hardware and software component level.

1.3.2.3. The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the technology maturation planning of the CTEs to a level where the technology has been proven to work in its final form and under expected conditions by the end of the development phase.

1.3.2.4. The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the approach to selecting the software architecture, processor types, major interfaces and approach to incorporating open architecture in the system design process.

1.3.2.5. The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the software architecture to meet the sizing, throughput, and spare capacity requirements; information assurance; and the technology refresh strategy.

1.3.2.6. The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the delivered and non-delivered software products to maintain and enhance the FAB-T over its life cycle.

1.3.2.7. The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the proposed TPMs for providing insight into the maturity and performance of the system.

1.3.3. Subfactor 2: Integrated Processes

1.3.3.1. The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the proposed engineering and management processes to support the execution of the program and achieve the objectives described in the SOO as well as the execution plan in the IMP and IMS.

1.3.3.2. The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the Offeror’s software related processes to effectively manage the proposed software development effort.

1.3.3.3. The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the business unit’s CMMI level to effectively manage the execution of the program.

1.3.3.4. The Government will evaluate the proposed analysis and tradeoffs to understand the Offeror’s application of systems engineering process for the work to go on their proposed technical solution.

1.3.3.5. The Government will evaluate the risks and mitigation plans as a means to assess Offeror’s understanding of the program complexity and the risk handling process that will be followed.

1.3.3.6. The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the Offeror’s proposed use of SCRM in system specification and design, to mitigate threats and vulnerabilities to system mission effectiveness.

1.3.3.7. The Government will evaluate the comprehensiveness, discipline, and rigor of the proposed reliability and maintainability techniques to meet the GTRD requirements as well as the integration of these techniques into the standard systems engineering processes across the lifecycle.

1.3.3.8. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s specific producibility design feature(s) which contribute to reduction of production cost, production schedules, and/or production risks.

1.3.3.9. The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the Offeror’s proposed approach and process to identify and reduce integration risks.

1.3.3.10. The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the Offeror’s proposed hardness assurance planning and process for ensuring that the proposed design will meet the FAB-T nuclear hardness requirements. The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the Offeror’s proposed process for identifying and qualifying radiation-hardened parts. The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the Offeror’s proposed process for source control on all parts. The Government will evaluate the process for allocating Probability of Survival (Ps) to LRUs and its relationship to Radiation Lot Acceptance Testing (RLAT).

1.3.3.11. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the required certifications and the process, products, effort and schedule needed to attain them.

1.3.3.12. The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the Offeror’s proposed approach to attaining the required certifications associated with Information Assurance and Security Verifications. The evaluation will include an understanding of the process, products, effort and schedule to attain the certifications.

1.3.3.13. The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the Offeror’s proposed manufacturing processes to support the delivery of the terminals according to the proposed cost and schedule.

1.3.3.14. The government will evaluate the Offeror’s sustainment concept.

1.3.3.15. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s plan to provide the Government rights in the technical data and software to be delivered under the contract that will enable the Government to disclose that technical data and software, outside the Government to a third party to be used for purposes to sustain the FAB-T system. Accordingly, the Offeror may receive favorable consideration for proposing rights in technical data and computer software that would enable the Government to accomplish the objective identified above. Technical data rights to the number of major components and those sub-components along with software will also be in the consideration process. Furthermore, in arriving at a best value decision, the Government will consider both the number and type of proposed restrictions on the technical data and software rights to be delivered under this contract, and the associated price, if any, of procuring such rights and the risks to the overall sustainment strategy.

1.3.4. Subfactor 3: Small Business (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

1.3.5.1. For Offerors with a DCMA Form 640 review, ratings provided by DCMA will be used.

1.3.5.2. For Offerors that do not have a DCMA Form 640 review, the Offeror will receive a rating based on the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between DCMA and the U.S. Small Business Administration, dated November 12, 2009. The MOU between DCMA and the U.S.

Small Business Administration is located on HERBB/FedBizOpps.

1.3.5.3. Passing is defined as anything other than an unsatisfactory rating according to Attachment 1 to the MOU.

In addition, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Subcontracting Plan to determine that the plan, at a minimum, specifies subcontracting goals for small disadvantaged business in accordance with FAR 52.219-9, DFARs 252.219-7003 and DFARs 252.219-7004; and addresses how those goals will be met and sustained. The Government has set the Small Disadvantaged Business goal at 5%.

1.4. Factor 2: Past Performance

1.4.1. The Performance Confidence Assessment represents the evaluation of past work records of the Offeror and associated key or major subcontractors teaming partners, and joint venture partners to assess the Offeror’s probability of successfully performing as proposed.

The Past Performance Evaluation is accomplished by reviewing the aspects of recent and relevant past performance, focusing on and targeting performance that is relevant to the Technical Capability subfactors, including schedule and cost/price performance.

1.4.2. In determining scope, magnitude and complexity, the Government will consider the following in no specific priority order:

1. Past experience involved developing communication systems with layered communication architectures.

2. Past work involved developing EHF satellite communications systems or segments.

3. Past work developing, producing, and sustaining multi-band satellite terminals where the degree of complexity is similar to that of the FAB-T.

4. Past work involving development and platform integration of terrestrial and/or airborne satellite terminals.

5. Past work involved developing airborne terminals operating with narrow beam-width satellite tracking antennas.

6. Past work demonstrating understanding of strategic Nuclear Command and Control

Extremely Sensitive Information, formally known as Single Integrated Operations Plan (SIOP), radio communications requirements.

7. Past work demonstrating an understanding of security certification of satellite communication systems including cryptographic devices.

8. Past work involving large scale military software development.

9. Past work involving the development and production of HEMP and nuclear hardened components.

1.4.3. Past Performance information may include data on efforts performed by other divisions, critical subcontractors, or teaming contractors, only if such resources will be brought to bear or significantly influence the performance of the proposed effort. The Government may consider efforts performed for agencies of the federal, state, or local governments and commercial customers where the performance can be independently verified.

1.4.4. Where relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness.

1.4.5. The Past Performance evaluation assesses the Offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet the contract’s requirements based on a demonstrated record of performance, including cost and schedule.

(i) Recency Assessment For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as work completed or ongoing during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation up to the point of a decision briefing. Only the work actually performed during this recency window will be used in the evaluation. More recent work will have a greater impact on the Confidence Assessment than less recent work.

(ii) Relevancy Assessment The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical Capability subfactors and Cost/Price factor, including their relative order of importance. All aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered relevant to determining the Offeror’s past performance. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information forms (PIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

(a) Very Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(b) Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(c) Somewhat Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and

(d) Not Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and

(iii) Performance Quality Assessment The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical Capability subfactors and Cost/Price Factor. However, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, CPARS, interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials, and if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government. If the Government is unable to independently confirm past performance work with the customer of the contract being assessed, the past contract will not be used in the confidence assessment. Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(v), the assessment will consider the extent to which the Offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns, monetary targets for SDB participation, and notifications submitted under FAR 52.219-25, Small Disadvantaged Business Participation Program—Disadvantaged Status and Reporting.

Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the Offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Quality Assessment Rating/Color

Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E)/BLUE During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

VERY GOOD (VG)/PURPLE During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered. Contractor took timely corrective action.

SATISFACTORY

(S)/GREEN

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M)/YELLOW During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY(U)/RED During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fail) to meet most contract requirements.

Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

NOT APPLICABLE

(N)/WHITE

Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

Each Offeror will receive one of the ratings described in Table 5, DoD Source Selection Procedures, 4 Mar 2011 for the Past Performance factor. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical Capability subfactors and cost/price factor, the http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/Regs/far2afmcfars/AF_AFMC/far/FAR15.DOC#b15305 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/Regs/far2afmcfars/AF_AFMC/far/FAR52.215.doc#b5221925 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/dfars/dfars215.htm#P123_5649 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/Regs/far2afmcfars/AF_AFMC/far/FAR52.215.doc#b522198 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/Regs/far2afmcfars/AF_AFMC/far/FAR52.215.doc#b522199 resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, or so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent and relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

Offerors are to note that, in conducting this assessment, the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the Offeror and data obtained from other sources. Past performance information will be obtained through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting Systems (CPARS), similar systems of other Government departments and agencies, questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels, interviews with program managers and contracting officers, and other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources.

1.5. Factor 3: Cost/Price

The offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable and realistic.

1.5.1. Price Reasonableness

For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business.

1.5.2. Cost/Price Realism Assessment

The Government will evaluate the realism of each Offerors’ Cost/Price proposal. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed costs are sufficient for the work to be performed, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, and consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal (FAR 15.404-1(d)(1) and 2.101). When the Government evaluates an offer as unrealistically low compared to the anticipated costs of performance and offeror fails to explain these underestimated costs, the Government will consider, under the Technical risk rating, the offeror’s lack of understanding of the technical requirements of the applicable Technical subfactor.

1.5.3. Unbalanced Pricing

The Government may determine a proposal unacceptable if the proposed amount by Contract Line Item Number (CLIN), including all options, is determined to be materially unbalanced as described in FAR15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques.

1.5.4. Government Estimate of Most Probable Cost (GEMPC)

The Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) CLINs will be evaluated at the Government Estimate of Most Probable Cost (GEMPC). The Offeror’s Cost or Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1. If an Offeror fails to substantiate estimated http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/dfars/dfars219.htm#b15404 file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR15.DOC%23b154041 file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR15.DOC%23T2101 costs, the Government may consider the Offeror’s lack of understanding of the technical requirements of the corresponding technical capability subfactor. The evaluation will consider technical/management risks and associated costs. The GEMPC may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government's best estimate of the cost that is most likely to result from the Offeror's proposal. The GEMPC associated with the CPFF CLINs will be used in the computation of the total evaluated price.

1.5.5. Total Evaluated Price

The total evaluated price for award purposes will be the sum of all CLINs to include the base period CLINs and all option CLINs as described below except that the Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an Offeror's proposed use of Government-furnished property (GFP) by assessing the equivalent value (see FAR 45.201) of those resources as part of the offered price.

(a) Fixed-Price-Incentive-Firm (FPIF) CLINs will be evaluated at the ceiling price. FPIF CLINs associated with pricing tables will be evaluated at the ceiling price for the applicable Best Estimated Quantities (BEQs) identified in Attachment 12 to the RFP. Any realism assessment will not be reflected in the Evaluated Price, but may be considered in the Risk associated with each Technical Capability subfactor.

(b) Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) CLINs will be evaluated at the Offeror’s proposed price. Any CLINs associated with pricing tables will be evaluated at the Offeror’s proposed price for the applicable government BEQs identified in Attachment 12 to the RFP.

(c) CPFF CLINs will be evaluated at the GEMPC plus the proposed fixed fee.

(d) If any additional GFP is proposed, the Government computed equivalent value will be added to the Total Evaluated Price.

1.5.6. Evaluation Technique

The Offeror’s Cost or Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1. If an Offeror fails to substantiate estimated costs, the Government may consider the Offeror’s lack of understanding of the technical requirements of the corresponding technical capability subfactor. The Government will evaluate the proposal for Cost or Price realism and consistency and determine the GEMPC. The evaluation will consider technical/management risks and associated costs. The GEMPC may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government's best estimate of the cost that is most likely to result from the Offeror's proposal. The GEMPC will be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the total evaluated cost or price.

1.5.7. Cost or Price Realism Assessment

Cost or Price realism will be evaluated using one or more methods described in FAR 15.404-1.

1.5.8. Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data

Information other than cost or pricing data will be evaluated for purposes of determining cost realism and reasonableness, as appropriate.

Discussions 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.

M003 DEMONSTRATION

The SSEB will visit the Offeror’s facility for a demonstration that will be used in evaluating the Offeror’s proposal. The Government will use the demonstration as a means to assess the technical risk within the Offeror’s written proposal. The demonstration will address the maturity and performance of the Offeror’s proposed technical solution as well as the Offeror’s overall ability to deliver a sufficiently mature and integrated solution within the Offeror’s proposed schedule.

M004 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offeror's are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offeror's must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.