TAB_11_-_CALL_01_-_Tech_Eval.pdf

TECHNICAL EVALUATION FOR COMPETITIVE ACQUISITIONS

(Used for CALL #01 - MSDM Technology Development)

BAA No: FA8651-20-S-0008 Proposal Control No: CALL #01

Type of Instrument Proposed:

Category Ranking:

Name of Offeror: Proposal Title:

Name of Evaluator:

Date of Evaluation:

Office Symbol:

Phone No:

EVALUATION CRITERIA (AS DETAILED IN THE SYNOPSIS)

1. T-1 [Basic] Comprehensive understanding of the breadth of the entire technical scope, how they relate to each other, and identification of major cost/technical risks and mitigation strategies

Exceeds the criteria (Address key aspects of the proposal which demonstrate why the proposal exceeds the criteria.)

Meets the criteria (Address key aspects of the proposal which demonstrate why the proposal meets the criteria.)

Does not meet the criteria (Address key aspects of the proposal which demonstrate why the proposal does not meet the criteria.)

Strengths

Weaknesses

Assessed Proposal Risk: High _____ Moderate _____ Low _____

High: Proposed approach to accomplish technical objectives is likely to experience one or more of the following: (1) significant disruption of schedule, (2) significantly increased cost, (3) partial/complete failure to achieve technical performance goals. Risk may be unacceptable even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Moderate: Proposed approach to accomplish technical objectives may experience one or more of the following: (1) moderate disruption of schedule, (2) moderately increased cost, (3) partial failure to achieve technical performance goals. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will probably be able to minimize/overcome such challenges.

Low: Proposed approach to accomplish technical objectives has little potential to experience disruption of schedule, increased cost, and/or failure to achieve technical performance goals.

Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will probably be able to minimize/overcome unexpected challenges that may arise.

2. T-2 [Task Order #01] Comprehensive understanding of the subsystem maturation technical effort and the capability to mature advanced, innovative subsystem designs to a components level Critical Design Review (CDR); and identification of major cost/technical risks and mitigation strategies

High: The offeror’s proposal reflects a lack of understanding of the scope of the technical effort with no significant relevant technical experience associated with this technology. Risk may be unacceptable even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Moderate: The offeror’s proposal reflects a reasonable understanding of the scope of the technical effort with some related technical experience, but no experience directly associated with this technology. Proposal includes limited discussion of management/organizational capabilities, facilities, techniques, or unique combinations of these to achieve technical objectives described in proposed technical approach. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will probably be able to minimize/overcome such challenges.

Low: The offeror’s proposal reflects a clear understanding of the scope of the technical effort and includes relevant technical experience directly associated with this technology. Proposal includes discussion of management/organizational capabilities, facilities, techniques, or unique combinations of these to achieve technical objectives described in proposed technical approach.

3. T-3 [Task Order #01] Comprehensive understanding of the integration technical effort and the capability to integrate subsystems into an advanced, innovative and miniaturized system and mature the system to a system CDR; and identification of major cost/technical risks and mitigation strategies

High: The proposed technical approach contains notable omissions or inconsistencies that are of significant concern with little to no discussion of risks and risk management. No significant qualifications, capabilities, and experience of key technical personnel. Risk may be unacceptable even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Moderate: The proposed technical approach contains at least one notable omission or inconsistency that is of moderate concern and includes a reasonable discussion of risks and risk management. Breadth of qualifications, capabilities, and experience of key personnel is lacking in at least one specific technology. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will probably be able to minimize/overcome such challenges.

Low: The proposed technical approach is sound and includes a risk management strategy that identifies major risks and feasible mitigation efforts. Key technical personnel possess qualifications and experience required and exhibit critical technical capabilities to perform this effort.

4. T-4 [Task Order #01] Comprehensive understanding of the test demonstration technical effort and the capability to perform complex test demonstrations; and identification of major cost/technical risks and mitigation strategies

High: The proposal includes at least one significant restriction on technical data/computer software that may be unacceptable. The specific nature of the restriction(s) could overly inhibit and possibly prevent the transition of R&D deliverables to future Government needs.

Moderate: The proposal includes a small to moderate amount of restrictions on technical data/computer software but the specific nature of said restrictions is not regarded as precluding the transition of R&D deliverables to future Government needs.

Low: No proposed restrictions on technical data/computer software that would preclude the transition of R&D deliverables to future Government needs. .

5. S-1 [Task Order #01] Comprehensive understanding of events, timing, interdependencies, schedule risks and mitigations.

High: The proposal includes at least one significant restriction on technical data/computer software that may be unacceptable. The specific nature of the restriction(s) could overly inhibit and possibly prevent the transition of R&D deliverables to future Government needs.

Moderate: The proposal includes a small to moderate amount of restrictions on technical data/computer software but the specific nature of said restrictions is not regarded as precluding the transition of R&D deliverables to future Government needs.

Low: No proposed restrictions on technical data/computer software that would preclude the transition of R&D deliverables to future Government needs. .

8. C-1 [Task Order #01] The reasonableness and realism of proposed costs and fees if any, the proposed cost share by the offeror if any, and the Offerors progress to the desired solution within the parameters of available funding. (Check all that apply)

Analysis of the offeror’s proposed (Discuss each element):

(1) Quantity and mix of labor hours:

(2) Material Types and Quantity:

(3) Travel (# people travelling, locations, length and type of trip):

(4) Subcontracting (Labor, Material, Travel):

(5) any other direct costs, are appropriate and realistic for their proposed technical approach:

(6) Data Right Assertions:

(7) Government Furnished Property/Information/Equipment:

(8) Statement of Work:

High: Cost proposed (including material and travel costs), labor mix and number of hours does not reflect that the Contractor has a clear understanding of the effort required to achieve technical objectives described in proposed technical approach. Risk may be unacceptable even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Moderate: Indicators exist that moderate additional costs and/or modification of labor categories or hours may be required to achieve technical objectives described in proposed technical approach.

Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will probably be able to minimize/overcome such challenges.

Low: Cost proposed (including material and travel costs), labor mix and number of hours reflect that the Contractor has a clear understanding of the effort and associated costs required to achieve technical objectives described in proposed technical approach.

Category Ranking: ________________

The evaluation described above will generally result in proposals being placed in one of the three categories below:

Highly Recommended: Proposals are recommended for acceptance if sufficient funding is available, and normally are displaced only by other Highly Recommended proposals.

Selectable: Proposals are recommended for acceptance if sufficient funding is available, but at a lower priority than Highly Recommended proposals. May require additional development. To ensure a diversity of approaches, a Selectable proposal may be prioritized over a Highly Recommended proposal if the Selectable proposal presents a unique approach unlike any of the Highly Recommended proposals.

Not Selectable: Even if sufficient funding existed, the proposal should not be funded.

Signature Program Manager: _____________________________________________

Typed/Printed Name: ______________________Date:

Signature Branch Chief (or equivalent): ____________________________________

Typed/Printed Name: ______________________Date: ______________