IVV Effort Attachment 3 - Section M cFSS amended.pdf

Attachment 3: Section M Evaluation Factors, Subfactors, and Evaluation Plan

1.0 General

Offerors are required to meet all RFP requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical/management requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the RFP may result in the offeror being ineligible for award.

2.0 Evaluation Factors

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Factor 1: Technical /Management Subfactor 1: Technical Approach Subfactor 2: Historical Relevant Work Subfactor 3: Program Management

Factor 2: Cost/Price

The Technical/Management factor is significantly more important than Cost/Price. Within the Technical/Management factor, the relative order of importance is as follows: Subfactors 1, 2, 3.

The Government will immediately compare responses received without individually scoring them. The Government will consider simple pass/fail criteria identified in Section 2.2 for the Technical / Management factor. The Government will determine the overall best value offer by collecting, documenting, and comparing facts about each offer.

2.2 Technical/Management.

The Technical/Management evaluation will consider the Offeror’s submission of the following:

a. Subfactor 1: Relevant experience with Core Autonomous Safety Software (CASS)

b. Subfactor 2: Relevant experience with software Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V)

c. Subfactor 3: Relevant experience with Programmable Logic Device (PLD) and wrapper software

The Government will initially consider a simple pass / fail criteria for each subfactor as documented in paragraphs 2.2.1 – 2.2.3. Subsequently, the Government will document facts and assessments of how well the Offeror’s proposed addresses these factors and the Performance Work Statement.

2.2.1 Technical Approach

To receive a rating of pass, the Offeror’s Technical Approach to executing SOO section 3 shall demonstrate an understanding of the expectation for the Offeror to

a) independently initiate, execute, and coordinate engagements with other Government agency subject matter experts and industry partners under the overall program management oversight and direction of Government personnel;

b) develop analysis plans, conduct design reviews and test readiness reviews for the assessment processes, criteria, and tools;

c) evaluate the configuration control of test and evaluation configuration items to ensure test articles are representative of the final delivered configuration;

d) communicate / interface with prime contractors, sub-system suppliers, and any other Government stakeholders to meet program objectives; and

2.2.2 Historical Relevance

To receive a rating of pass, the Offeror must provide a traceability document identifying historical work the company has provided to the Government relevant to each of the SOO tasks in Section 3. Acceptable historical work may have been completed for other government agencies outside Air Force PEO Weapons that is of a similar nature. It is not necessary for the Offeror to detail contract numbers, performance ratings, and provide names, phone numbers, and email addresses for Government contract points of contact for this reference.

2.2.3 Program Management

To receive a rating of pass, the Offeror must identify

a) processes to ensure effective oversight and administration of the contract;

b) key personnel;

c) a program management approach for ensuring fully-trained, top quality personnel are provided to meet SOO requirements.

3.0 Cost / Price

Offeror proposals shall identify and specify the basis of estimate for the period of performance (18 months). Offeror’s proposal shall be valid for 180 days. The Government will compare proposed prices and Technical/Management merit between Offeror proposals to establish price reasonableness.

4.0 Best Value Determination

The Government will select the Offeror that offers the best value from the combined comparison and evaluation of the Technical/Management and Cost/Price factor information.