05_Section_M_(29_Apr_09).doc

SECTION M: EVALUATION CRITERIA

SECTION M: EVALUATION CRITERIA

GPS Advanced Control Segment (OCX)

Evaluation Factors for Award

SECTION M

for

FA8807-09-R-0003

29 April 2009

[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

Table of Contents

1.0 Program Overview 2.0 Basis for Contract Award 3.0 General Evaluation Information

4.0 Source Selection Matrix…..………………………………………………………………..7

5.0 Factor 1 - Mission Capability

5.1 General

5.1.1 Mission Capability Technical Rating

5.1.2 Mission Capability Risk Rating

5.2 Mission Capability Subfactors

5.2.1 Subfactor 1: Program Management

5.2.2 Subfactor 2: Software & Architecture

5.2.3 Subfactor 3: Systems Engineering, Integration and Test

6.0 Factor 2 - Cost/Price Risk Assessment 7.0 Factor 3 - Past Performance 8.0 Factor 4 - Cost/Price

8.1 Total Evaluated Cost/Price

8.2 Government Assessment

1.0 Program Overview

The Government has a need for a GPS Advanced Control Segment (OCX) with a flexible architecture that can rapidly adapt to the changing needs of today’s warfighter. Given the current dynamic military operational environment, our warfighters need more capability than today’s GPS Ground Segment can provide.

In particular, OCX must meet today’s information assurance requirements to ensure protection of GPS data critical to determining warfighter position, velocity, and time; monitor and control new M-code encrypted GPS signal to ensure the battlefield advantage of American warfighters and civil signals (L1C, L2C, and L5); and connect GPS data to the Global Information Grid so that warfighters around the globe have immediate access to GPS data and constellation status.

OCX is urgently needed not only to enable new warfighter capabilities but to provide command and control of the GPS IIIA SV scheduled to launch in May 2014. As a result, the Government seeks an offering that has high confidence in meeting the schedule identified in Section F of this RFP, and delivers capability on time for launch of the first GPS IIIA SV.

OCX also supports civil users who are employing GPS in innovative ways for transportation, surveying, financial transactions, and many other activities. As a result, the Government also seeks an offering that meets PSICA requirements in Blocks 1.0 and 2.0; will be able to meet Effectivity 40 requirements in the SS-CS-800 if required to do so, and provides a cost-effective sustainment approach including effective trainers and simulators.

Finally, the Government seeks a Program Management; Software and Architecture; and System Engineering, Integration and Test approach that provides a flexible architecture for adding new capabilities, solid requirements management process to address new requirements without impacting delivery schedules, and confidence to operators and maintainers that the proposed approach will not adversely impact the system before, during, and after Transition to Operations.

2.0 Basis for Contract Award

a. This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with FAR 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the DFARS and the AFFARS. A contract will 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 will select the best overall offer that provides the greatest confidence and lowest risk that it will meet the program requirements, based upon an integrated assessment of Mission Capability, Cost/Price Risk, Past Performance, Cost/Price, and all contractual documentation. 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. The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Should the Government conduct discussions, in accordance with FAR 15.306(d) (3), the Government will provide the Offerors with their rating status after the Competitive Range determination and again prior to final proposal revisions. The Government will also provide the Offerors any differences between their proposed cost/price and the Government’s MPC for the same items with the goal of understanding these differences to the maximum extent possible, including the uncertainty analysis methods and results (i.e., unjustified/inadequately documented coefficient of variation).

c. Contract Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. The Mission Capability Factor is more important than the Cost/Price Risk factor which is more important than the Past Performance and Cost/Price Factors. The Past Performance and Cost/Price Factors are of equal importance to each other. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than cost, when combined, are significantly more important than the Cost/Price Factor; however, Cost/Price will contribute substantially to the selection decision. All Mission Capability subfactors are of equal importance to each other.

2.1 Mandatory Requirement

All certifications and representations required by Section K of the solicitation must be completed as of the date of contract award. In the event that a proposal fails to comply with this mandatory requirement, the proposal may be determined to be unacceptable regardless of an otherwise overall acceptable rating.

3.0 General Evaluation Information

3.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award a single contract as a result of this solicitation. However, the Government reserves the right to not award a contract.

3.2 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.

3.3 Modernized Capability Engineering Model

The Government will evaluate any MCEM material submitted under the applicable subfactor(s), provided the Offeror clearly identifies in its proposal the location of the substantiating data and its relationship to the specific evaluation criteria in that subfactor.

3.4 Evaluation of COTS/GOTS

The Government will evaluate all code as either (1) reused code or (2) new code. If the Offeror proposes to modify the source code of any COTS/GOTS item, the Government will not be bound by the Offeror’s designation of that code as either “new” or “reused”. In making its independent assessment of modified code as either “new” or “reused”, the Government will consider both the Offeror’s approach to making such a classification and the significance of the modification(s).

4.0 Source Selection Matrix:

The matrix shown in Table 1 below summarizes the types of evaluation factors and subfactors, and the approach that will be used to obtain an integrated evaluation; i.e., determine best value.

Table 1 - Evaluation Matrix

Evaluation Factors

(Descending order of importance)

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Marginal

Marginal

Marginal

Unacceptable

Unacceptable

Unacceptable

Moderate

High

Least important

(Of = importance to each other)

Satisfactory Confidence

Limited Confidence

No Confidence

Unknown Confidence

5.0 Factor 1 - Mission Capability

5.1 General

Each Mission Capability subfactor shall receive two separate and distinct ratings: a technical rating and a risk rating. These two ratings are presented together. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Mission Capability factor. Where the Offeror cites Phase A contract efforts, such as MCEM and SDR, in support of its proposal, the Government will assess how these efforts satisfy the requirements of, and reduce risk to, the Phase B program.

5.1.1 Mission Capability Technical Rating

a. The Mission Capability Technical Rating reflects the extent to which the Offeror’s proposed approach, meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria and solicitation requirements. The Government will assign a rating based upon the strengths, uncertainties, and deficiencies contained in the Offeror’s proposal.

(1) A “strength” is a significant aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit and exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that is advantageous to the government, and either will be included in the contract or is inherent in the Offeror's process.

(2) An “uncertainty” is a doubt regarding whether an aspect of the proposal meets a material performance or capability requirement. It requires additional information from the Offeror to further explain the proposal before the evaluator can complete his/her review and analysis and should generate the issuance of an EN.

(3) A “deficiency” is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

b. The Government will apply one of the following color ratings listed in Table 2 below for each Mission Capability subfactor.

Table 2 - Mission Capability Technical Ratings

5.1.2 Mission Capability Risk Rating

a. The Mission Capability Risk Rating focuses on the weaknesses associated with the Offeror’s proposed approach. The Government’s assessment of Mission Capability Risk considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

(1) A “weakness” is a flaw in the Offeror’s proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

(2) A “significant weakness” is a flaw in the Offeror’s proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

b. Whenever the Government adjusts a proposed element of cost upward, the Government may also assign a Weakness or Significant Weakness to the appropriate subfactor relative to its Mission Capability Risk rating.

c. The Government will apply one of the following risk ratings listed in Table 3 below for each Mission Capability subfactor.

Table 3 - Mission Capability Risk Ratings

Unacceptable (U)

The existence of a significant weakness (or combination of weaknesses) that is very likely to cause unmitigated disruption of schedule, drastically increased cost, or severely degraded performance. Proposals with an unacceptable rating are not awardable.

5.2 Mission Capability Subfactors

5.2.1 Subfactor 1: Program Management

5.2.1.1 Organization and Staffing

The Government will evaluate the extent to which:

a. The Offeror proposes a team with appropriate relationships, roles, and responsibilities based on expertise, resources, breadth of experience, and domain knowledge required to execute the program.

b. The Offeror’s proposed IPT structure identifies and defines roles, relationships, interdependencies, and communication channels among its team members, associate contractors, and the Government to create an integrated team, support decision-making processes and ensure unencumbered exchange of information. The program’s placement within the corporate structure ensures visibility to corporate leadership with short lines of authority. The Offeror’s Program Manager has authority, accountability and responsibility to execute a nationally important program of the size and complexity of OCX. The Government’s role in the Offeror’s IPT structure allows insight into prime and subcontractor taskings, issues, schedules, risks, problems and progress and supports the Government’s ability to exercise its program oversight responsibilities.

c. The Offeror designated key personnel on the OCX program at the prime and subcontractor levels for critical technical and management positions. Key personnel proposed in H009 possess experience consistent with the responsibility, accountability, and authority of the positions proposed. The Offeror’s proposed staffing plan includes the levels of technical and management personnel required for OCX incremental development, transition, and sustainment support for Phase B program execution and is consistent with its proposed bases of estimates and staffing profile included in Volume V. The Offeror’s ramp-up plan for Phase B is consistent with the schedule proposed in the IMS. The Offeror’s proposed use of development facilities supports program requirements and is consistent with the IMP, IMS, and SOW.

5.2.1.2 Management Approach

The Government will evaluate the extent to which:

a. The Offeror’s management approach demonstrates an understanding of the OCX technical and programmatic requirements and objectives. The Offeror’s approach facilitates the planning, organizing, and managing of resources to execute the program consistent with the Government’s funding and schedule constraints.

b. The Offeror’s SOW, IMP, CWBS, and IMS are integrated and traceable to each other and:

(1) The Offeror’s proposed SOW captures the tasks established in the GSOW and includes tasks unique to the Offeror’s approach that supplement or compliment the GSOW tasks and support successful program execution.

(2) The Offeror’s proposed IMP (i) contains the appropriate Events, SAs and ACs, (ii) includes details for prime and subcontractor efforts, (iii) includes entry and exit criteria for IMP Events and (iv) provides a mechanism to allow assessment of the maturity of products to be completed. IMP narratives provide contractually binding process details and support IMP Events, SAs and ACs. The IMP contains SAs and ACs that demonstrate the Offeror’s understands the OCX role as part of an integrated GPS enterprise.

(3) The Offeror’s proposed CWBS is traceable to the Government WBS. The CWBS dictionary is consistent with the Government WBS dictionary and enables evaluation of BOEs and proposed costs.

(4) The Offeror’s proposed IMS:

i. Identifies key products from the prime, subcontractor, other prime contractor divisions, and suppliers that support on time delivery of contractual requirements.

ii. Identifies the proper phasing of tasks, planned meetings, milestone reviews, CDRL items, GP need dates, and GPS enterprise level integration events. For GP and BSL, the Government will evaluate the executability of on-time delivery of GP from the Government.

iii. Includes a giver/receiver list for GPS IIIA and other associate contractor products needed to support the IMS, IMP, CWBS and SOW.

iv. Provides traceability to the IMP, CWBS, SOW, CDRLs, and CLINs.

v. Includes a schedule risk assessment and critical path analysis. Identifies critical paths and provides margin for critical components and margin to accommodate unexpected program events. Identifies the risk activities consistent with the risks the Offeror has identified in the proposal.

vi. Includes all required activities, as defined by the SOW and the compliance documents in Attachment 2, leading up to Government approvals required for development, transition, and operation of OCX.

c. The Offeror’s proposed tools and processes provide structure, discipline, and visibility for successful, program execution within cost and schedule. The tools and processes have heritage within the Offeror’s organization, are validated (when appropriate), and provide the Government information to make timely decisions. The Offeror demonstrates its ability to use its tools and processes in an integrated manner to provide visibility into program problems and progress and provide insight into cost and schedule impacts of proposed requirements changes.

d. The Offeror’s administrative and technical management relationships with subcontractors and IDTs provide control over critical path or higher risk efforts and facilitate Government oversight and insight into key processes, problems, and progress.

e. The Offeror’s proposed communications and collaboration strategy provides for disclosure of information to enable management of the program between the prime contractor and its subcontractors and vendors, other divisions of the prime contractor, associate contractors, the GPSW, and DCMA.

f. The Offeror’s proposed roles and responsibilities of the management and technical boards for management of technical and program baseline are well defined to enable the Government to perform oversight, facilitate insight into problems and progress at its subcontractors and other divisions of the prime contractor, and are reflected in the IMP narrative.

g. The Offeror’s proposal in Attachment 8 of Volume VI to provide data rights to the Government meets the Government’s minimum needs as described in the RFP and does not inhibit the Government’s ability to oversee development, and to operate and sustain the OCX system. The analysis conducted by the Offeror (including all assumptions made) demonstrates that the quantity of seats associated with the licenses for commercial item technical data and computer software the Offeror proposes to deliver to the Government listed in Table 2 of its completed Attachment 8 will be sufficient for the Government to execute the proposed OCX program and is consistent with the Offeror’s proposed architecture.

h. The Offeror’s proposed approach minimizes the dependencies on GP and BSL (Volume VI, Attachment 7) and RFNI and Government-Provided Information (MC 7) and reduces the Government’s program execution burden. The items are consistent with the SOW and IMP and are included in the IMS at appropriate points and for appropriate durations.

5.2.1.3 Small Business Participation

The Government will evaluate:

a. The acceptability of the proposed Small Business Subcontracting Plan in Volume VI, Attachment 9 as outlined in FAR 19.7 and its supplements.

b. The complexity of the work subcontracted to small business entities. Complex work subcontracted to small business entities will be more highly rated than noncomplex work subcontracted to small business entities.

(1) Complex work has quality characteristics, not wholly visible in the end item or result, for which contractual conformance must be established progressively through precise measurements, tests, and controls applied during design, development, test, purchasing, manufacturing, performance, assembly, and functional operation either as an individual item or result or in conjunction with other items or results.

(2) Noncomplex work has quality characteristics for which simple measurement and test of the end item or result are sufficient to determine conformance to contract requirements.

c. The percentage of total contract dollars subcontracted to small business entities. Higher percentages of total contract dollars subcontracted to small business entities will be more highly rated than lower percentages of total contract dollars subcontracted to small business entities. If the Offeror proposes a goal of less than 20% of the total contract dollars subcontracted to small business entities, it provided a reasonable explanation as to why 20% is not an achievable contract goal.

d. Utilization of the different types of small business entities. Higher diversity among the small business types (i.e., Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Veteran-Owned Small Business, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business, Women-Owned Small Business, HUBZone Small Business, and Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions) proposed for subcontracts will be more highly rated than lower diversity among the small business types proposed for subcontracts.

5.2.1.4 Program Management Risk

The Government will evaluate the extent to which:

a. The Offeror demonstrates an understanding of the top ten program management risks to delivering OCX Blocks 1.0 and 2.0.

b. The Offeror’s proposed mitigation plans provide alternatives and decision points leading to actionable decisions to retire risks to support on time delivery. Mitigation plans, including prime, subcontractor, IDT, and Government efforts, are reflected in the IMP and IMS.

c. The Offeror’s proposed risk mitigation and “burn down” plans are supported by metrics to enable the monitoring of risk “burn down” progress.

5.2.2 Subfactor 2: Software & Architecture

5.2.2.1 OCX Segment Architecture & Design

The Government will evaluate the extent to which:

a. The Offeror’s proposed OCX segment architecture represents a complete architectural baseline.

b. The Offeror’s proposed segment baseline design implements the OCX segment architecture and can be accomplished consistent with the proposed cost and schedule.

c. The Offeror’s proposed content for Block 1.0 and Block 2.0 meets the Government’s minimum requirements for each Block outlined in GSOW Annex 1. The effectivities in the Offeror’s redlined SS-CS-800 are mapped to reflect the proposed content for each Block.

5.2.2.2 Software Products

The Government will evaluate the extent to which:

a. The Offeror’s approach to delivering new and reused software products will minimize development and integration effort, and enhance architectural flexibility, supportability, and maturity of the technical solution. The Offeror’s approach ensures that new and reused software products incorporated into OCX meet the standards of SMC-S-012 “Software Development Standard for Space Systems” (Attachment 2 of Volume VI).

b. The Offeror’s approach to evaluating, selecting and integrating reuseable software products (including MCEM) to meet OCX requirements ensures that all such products demonstrate maturity and appropriateness and can be incorporated into Blocks 1.0 and 2.0 in a manner consistent with Section 4.2.4 and Appendix B of SMC-S-012. The Offeror’s IMP narrative, “Software Development Definition and Treatment of New vs. Reuse” describes the process used in this proposal (and to be used on Phase B) to accurately quantify the degree of modification to any reuse code to determine whether that reuse code will be developed and tested as new code. The Offeror’s proposed effort is consistent with the aforementioned IMP narrative and Section M-3.4.

5.2.2.3 Human Systems Integration

The Government will evaluate the extent to which:

a. The Offeror’s proposed approach (e.g., user involvement, prototyping) integrates the HSI process and products into the OCX design, including hardware, software, logistics, training, facilities and procedures.

b. The Offeror’s proposed HSI methods support automation and optimize staffing profiles (number of personnel and skill level of personnel) to facilitate operations and maintenance.

5.2.2.4 Software Architecture

The Government will evaluate the extent to which:

a. The Offeror’s proposed software architecture satisfies the modularity, flexibility, scalability, and expandability requirements in SS-CS-800. The Offeror’s data rights proposed in Attachment 8 of Volume VI meet the Government’s minimum needs as described in this RFP. Where the Offeror proposes to use proprietary software, it provides adequate justification as to why the function cannot be performed with non-proprietary software.

b. The Offeror’s proposed software architecture accommodates integration of new, reuse, NDI, GOTS/COTS software, or any combination thereof, into OCX.

c. The Offeror’s proposed software architecture allows for the addition of new requirements including, but not limited to, Effectivities 17-40, without impacting the Offeror’s proposed design.

d. The Offeror demonstrates through its “software technical refresh” example that the design, manufacture, and fielding of the modification does not impact GPS operations, improves reliability, maintainability, availability, and operability, and provides an evolutionary growth path for OCX.

5.2.2.5 Processes

The Government will evaluate the extent to which:

a. The Offeror’s proposed software engineering approach in MC2 complies with the SMC-S-012. The Offeror’s proposed OCX software engineering processes in MC2 follow CMMI® Process Areas: Requirements Management, Verification, and Project Monitoring and Control. The Offeror’s proposed incorporation of software reuse throughout the software development life-cycle complies with SMC-S-012.

b. The Offeror’s proposed PIAP uses the SCAMPI B appraisal results (and results from any Organizational or Program appraisals performed) to improve the capability of the integrated team to develop OCX and reduce program risks. The proposed actions plans are evident in the IMP, IMS, and SOW. The Offeror provides a characterization of the PIAP risks and proposes risk mitigation plans.

5.2.2.6 Software Risk

The Government will evaluate the extent to which:

a. The Offeror demonstrates an understanding of the top ten software risks to delivering OCX Blocks 1.0 and 2.0.

b. The Offeror’s proposed mitigation plans provide alternatives and decision points leading to actionable decisions to retire risks to support on time delivery. Mitigation plans, including prime, subcontractor, IDT, and Government efforts, are reflected in the IMP and IMS.

c. The Offeror’s proposed risk mitigation and “burn down” plans are supported by metrics to enable the monitoring of risk “burn down” progress.

5.2.2.7 Net-Centricity

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s processes, architecture, and technical design solution:

a. Conforms to the Department of Defense Net-Centric data strategy as defined by DoDD 8320.02, including the Data Sharing in a Net-Centric Department of Defense, dated 23 April 2007 and including the use of DoD enterprise metadata for semantic interoperability.

b. Separates application functionality from infrastructure to comply with the net-centric scalability and extensibility requirement of SS-CS-800.

c. Prepares for Net-Ready KPP certification processes and criteria for infrastructure development in accordance with the Interoperability and Supportability Assessor’s Checklist in the Bidder’s Library, and supports compliance with the OCX Net-Centricity requirements in Effectivity 30 with rationale for any compliance areas that cannot be met.

5.2.3 Subfactor 3: Systems Engineering, Integration and Test

5.2.3.1 Systems Engineering Approach

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposed approach is consistent with the GPS Enterprise TEMP and complies with the GPSW SEP and SMC-S-001.

5.2.3.2 Integrated Logistics Support

The Government will evaluate the extent to which:

a. The Offeror’s proposed approach for conducting supportability analysis satisfies OCX RMA requirements.

b. The Offeror’s approach facilitates a collaborative environment in which the Government and OCX stakeholders develop a PBL sustainment strategy. The Offeror demonstrates an understanding of the sustainment cost drivers and the process to continuously reduce OCX life-cycle costs. The Offeror’s approach maintains the development system assurance processes and provides technical advisors to support transition and sustainment during the Interim Contractor Support of each OCX Block.

c. The Offeror’s proposed Public Private Partnership strategy with organic candidate depots maximizes the utilization of the Government’s facilities, equipment, and personnel at DoD depot-level maintenance activities, implements best business practices and improves operations while sustaining core depot-level maintenance and repair competencies.

d. The Offeror’s proposed approach to transitioning all logistics elements (e.g., technical data, Operations and Maintenance training and documentation, spares, facilities, pre-operational support, interim contract support) of the OCX system from development to sustainment for Blocks 1.0 and 2.0 is consistent with Section F and its proposed IMS for each product (e.g., MCS/AMCS, GSYS, CTS, GA, MS, DSAS) delivered as part of each Block. The rights in data proposed by the Offeror in Attachment 8 of Volume VI meet the Government’s minimum needs as described in this RFP and support a smooth transition from development to sustainment.

e. The Offeror’s proposed approach to Level I and Level II Software Maintenance highlights differences between Level I and Level II Software Maintenance, adheres to the same system assurance processes as in development, and ensures a high state of OCX operational readiness. The Offeror’s work plan is consistent with the Bases of Estimate, IMP, IMS, and SOW.

f. The Offeror’s proposed approach to Level I and Level II Hardware Maintenance highlights differences between Level I and Level II Hardware Maintenance, adheres to the same system assurance processes as in development, and ensures a high state of OCX operational readiness. The Offeror’s work plan is consistent with the Bases of Estimate, IMP, IMS, and SOW.

g. The Offeror’s proposed approach to providing technical order support and maintenance for GOTS and COTS products; work unit codes (WUCs); software user manuals (SUM); illustrated parts breakdowns (IPB); training materials; and engineering data and drawings supports the GPS Technical Order Management Authority (TOMA).

h. The Offeror’s proposed Interim Contractor Support plan ensures a high state of readiness for transition activities and operational readiness following RTO. The Offeror’s work plan is consistent with the Bases of Estimate, IMP, IMS, and SOW.

5.2.3.3 Transition to Operations

The Government will evaluate the extent to which:

a. The Offeror’s proposed Control Segment transition plan for implementing activities that are required to achieve RTO as defined in the SOW for each transition event is in the IMS, IMP, and SOW and is consistent with the data rights proposed in Attachment 8 of Volume VI.

b. The Offeror’s proposed transition approach does not impact GPS operations and the end users. The approach provides the capability to fall back to the previous increment at any time after start of transition.

c. The Offeror’s proposed Transition Support plan ensures a high state of readiness for transition activities. The Offeror’s work plan is consistent with the Bases of Estimate, IMP, IMS, and SOW.

5.2.3.4 GPS Enterprise Integration

The Government will evaluate the extent to which:

a. The Offeror’s proposed processes and plans support GPS enterprise integration are in accord with the SEP and TEMP, and are reflected in its IMP, IMS, SOW and CWBS. The Offeror’s IMS reflects key inter-segment dependencies between the Offeror, Government, and other segment contractors.

b. The Offeror’s projected needs for simulators, test, and integration resources are consistent with its proposed IMS. The Offeror’s projected needs (dates and duration) for access to the GPS IIIA contractor’s simulation facilities, as reflected in its IMS, can be met through risk mitigation alternatives in the event that GPS IIIA materials are unavailable.

c. The Offeror’s IMP and SEMP describe plans for participating in System Integration Demonstrations. The Offeror has demonstrated an understanding of ICC responsibilities and offers a collaborative approach for joint development of ICDs. The Offeror’s processes for working with the Government and associate contractors minimize risks in both the space and ground segment development, and identifying and managing inter-segment risks. The Offeror time phases activities to avoid impacts to other GPS segments consistent with its proposed IMP, IMS, SOW, and SEMP, and meets identified need dates.

5.2.3.5 Information Assurance

The Government will evaluate the extent to which:

a. The Offeror’s proposed architecture satisfies the OCX IA requirements in the SS-CS-800 and Attachment 2: Compliance and Reference Documents and Tailoring List of this RFP.

b. The Offeror’s proposed OCX IA C&A approach is consistent with the IMS, IMP and SOW, and includes time-phased tasks to support the delivery schedule specified in Section F of the RFP. The Offeror identifies systems, facilities, enclaves, and data connections as well as implementation, testing, and other activities necessary to support anticipated Government C&A decision points.

c. The Offeror’s proposed approach for incorporating IA controls and requirements throughout its system engineering, system security engineering, and software development processes minimizes vulnerabilities in software, hardware, and operations.

5.2.3.6 Positioning Signal Integrity and Continuity Assurance The Government will evaluate the extent to which:

a. The Offeror’s proposed PSICA development approach for Blocks 1.0 and 2.0 is consistent with the requirements of this RFP. The Offeror provides a list of artifacts to be produced for OCX to support future Effectivity 40 integrity requirements verification. The Offeror identifies how it will interface with other segments and the appropriate actions that it will take to avoid duplication of effort to resolve PSICA issues discovered by other segments.

b. The Offeror’s proposed architecture supports evolution to future PSICA functions and capabilities identified in SS-CS-800 (effectivities 17-40). The Offeror identifies PSICA program and schedule risks, and provides a risk mitigation approach to meeting RTCA/DO-278 certification if the proposed OCX design evolves to meet Effectivity 40 requirements.

c. The Offeror’s Plans for Software Aspects of Approval (PSAA) and Plans for Hardware Aspects of Approval (PHAA) are complete and documented in the IMP, IMS, and SOW. The Offeror has a complete approach to monitor and control conformance to those plans across the prime, all subcontractors, and all Interdivisional Transfers.

d. The Offeror’s summary of how it identifies and classifies potential failure conditions, hazards, and hazard severities in its functional architecture for OCX Blocks 1.0 and 2.0 is consistent with RTCA/DO-178B. The Offeror (1) provides rationale for its proposed identification and classification approach, (2) describes uncertainties in its identification and classification of failure conditions, resultant hazards and hazard severities, (3) describes associated technical risks of failing to identify any of those hazards, condition or severities, and (4) describes risk mitigation.

e. The Offeror’s L-band data monitoring approach provides the hardware, software, and algorithms (including assumptions and limitations of those algorithms) necessary to monitor L-band data and detect anomalous conditions including sensitivity, limitations, and any deviations from requirements in this RFP.

f. The Offeror’s procedures, resources, and time meet PSICA requirements and are provided for in the IMP, SEMP, CWBS, IMS, SOW, and SDP.

5.2.3.7 System Specification and Compliance Document Tailoring The Government will evaluate the extent to which:

a. The Offeror’s proposed SS-CS-800 meets the requirements in the Government’s SS-CS-800, and is consistent with SS-SS-800 and SS-SYS-800.

b. The Offeror’s proposed SOW retains content, basic structure and numbering of the GSOW. Any additional tasks proposed better reflect the Offeror’s proposal and provide benefits to the Government.

c. The Offeror-proposed changes to compliance documents are substantiated, meet the Government requirements, do not relax any requirements contained in any compliance documents in Attachment 2: Compliance and Reference Documents and Tailoring List, and demonstrate best value to the Government without jeopardizing mission success.

5.2.3.8 Position, Navigation, and Timing

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s approach for satisfying OCX PNT requirements:

a. Meets user-range-error requirements and includes technically valid assumptions,

b. Provides design elements that achieve PNT performance requirements and provides justification for selecting those elements, and

c. Provides for continuous improvement of PNT accuracy and the availability of PNT accuracy from OCX Block 1.0 to Block 2.0 and addresses potential risks associated with such improvement.

5.2.3.9 Civil and Military Code (M-code) Messages and NAVWAR

The Government will evaluate the extent to which:

a. The Offeror’s proposed design features, operational concept, and requirements verification approach controls and monitors legacy (i.e., L1: Course Acquisition (C/A), Precise (Encrypted) P(Y), L2: P(Y)) and modernized (i.e., L1C, M-code, L2C, L5) signals.

b. The Offeror’s proposed approach satisfies OCX requirements for controlling and monitoring flex power, boosted M-code, key management (Over the Air Distribution, Over the Air Re-keying), and other supported services. The Offeror’s proposed approach to employing these capabilities is consistent with the proposed operational concept.

5.2.3.10 Test Program

The Government will evaluate the extent to which:

a. The Offeror’s development test program extends from the lowest configuration item level to the system level, to certify the OCX system as ready for operational testing, and demonstrates best practices and lessons learned, adequate margin to develop, coordinate, and implement required test documentation (e.g., verification plans, test plans/procedures), includes SI Demonstrations, qualification test strategy, regression test strategy, verification and validation strategy, and implements a strategy for early defect identification and deficiency resolution.

b. The Offeror’s development test program demonstrates (1) tracking and flowing requirements into the test program, (2) a verification process that includes planning and approval of segment requirements sell-off and a delineation of partial and full sell-off methodologies for CS-800, and (3) includes resources needed to support system level SS-SYS-800 requirements sell-off.

c. The Offeror provides resources and schedule allocations to support OT&E activities throughout the life-cycle of the program including, but not limited to, early Operational Assessments, Integrated Test opportunities during execution of the incremental development test program, readiness certification prior to dedicated OT&E, test monitoring and deficiency resolution during dedicated OT&E events, and analysis and reporting activities.

d. The Offeror’s development test program is reflected in the IMP, IMS and SOW, and defines need dates, content, and source for test resources, test environments, support tools, and processes required to execute its developmental test program. Additionally, the Offeror’s development test program provides risk mitigation strategies for potential resource conflicts, and defines the decision process and associated rationale to continue executing a test activity at non-optimal conditions.

5.2.3.11 Capability Insertion Program Plan

The Government will evaluate the extent to which:

a. The Offeror demonstrates an understanding of the growth path and provides an approach to insert new Effectivities 17-40 capabilities at minimum cost, risk, and impact to Blocks 1.0 and 2.0 development and operations.

b. The Offeror’s plan includes a process to mature new capabilities through SRR, SDR and PDR-level designs for both Blocks 3.0 and 4.0. In those cases where new OCX capabilities support new GPS III system capabilities, the Offeror’s plan enables the GPS enterprise to synchronize MS-B for OCX Block 3.0 and GPS IIIB and MS-B for OCX Block 4.0 and GPS IIIC.

c. The Offeror’s proposed plan evolves new capabilities from requirements definition, to design, development, code and test, and provides “on-ramps” at appropriate points. Cost/performance trades (including CAIV and SAIV), demonstrations, prototype solutions, model results, and simulations verify new OCX functionality. The Offeror maintains a prototyping and risk reduction environment that supports all required demonstrations and demonstrates implementation of new requirements. The Offeror’s plan identifies all agreements with external agencies necessary to implement the demonstration environment and will provide for conclusion of those agreements in time to support the demonstrations.

d. The Offeror’s proposed approach identifies, plans, manages, and implements mature applicable critical technology elements to at least TRL 6 prior to MS-B for Blocks 3.0 and 4.0.

5.2.3.12 Technology Readiness Level

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror identifies all critical technology elements in its proposed design for Blocks 1.0 and 2.0. The Offeror’s proposed design meets TRL level 6, as defined by the DoD TRA Deskbook, May 2005, and achieves TRL 7 by MS-C for Blocks 1.0 and 2.0. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal is based on CTEs that have not been demonstrated in a relevant environment.

5.2.3.13 SEIT Risk

The Government will evaluate the extent to which:

a. The Offeror’s assessment follows the Risk Management Plan of the SEMP and demonstrates an understanding of the top ten SEIT risks.

b. The Offeror’s proposed mitigation plans including prime, subcontractor, IDT, and Government efforts, are reflected in the IMP and IMS. The mitigation plans provide alternatives and decision points leading to actionable decisions to retire risks to support on-time delivery.

c. The Offeror’s proposed risk mitigation and “burn down” plans are supported by metrics to enable the monitoring of risk “burn down” progress.

6.0 Factor 2 - Cost/Price Risk Assessment

The Government will evaluate Cost/Price Risk by assessing the difference between the Offeror’s proposed Cost/Price and the Government’s best estimate of the Offeror’s MPC as evaluated in Section M-8. The Government may quantify (dollarize) the impact of any weakness identified in the Mission Capability assessment that may disrupt schedule, increase cost, or degrade performance, and, where applicable, adjust the proposed cost/price accordingly as described in Section M-8.2.c. The Government will assign one of the Cost/Price Risk ratings defined in Table 4 below.

Table 4 - Cost/Price Risk Ratings Table 4 Cost/Price Risk Ratings

7.0 Factor 3 - Past Performance

7.1 General

The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to fulfill the solicitation requirements while meeting schedule, budget, and performance quality constraints.

7.2 Relevancy

The Government has determined that the most relevant past performance for this solicitation is that associated with the GPS OCX Phase A activities, including but not limited to the SDR and MCEM Prototype Demonstration conducted under OCX Phase A contracts FA8807-08-C-0001 and FA8807-08-C-0003. The Government will conclude that even that past performance is irrelevant, however, if the Offeror fails to demonstrate that the resources it used to perform either contract (e.g., predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement) will be provided or relied upon to perform the requirements of this RFP and have meaningful involvement in contract performance. Accordingly, the Government will assign an “Unknown Confidence” past performance rating to any Offeror that (a) did not perform under either contract or (b) performed under either contract, but does not intend to use those resources described above to perform the requirements of this RFP that performed either contract. Unknown Confidence will not be treated as a negative rating.

7.3 Quality Assessment

a. The Government’s assessment of the quality of the Offeror’s past performance will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of the Offeror’s relevant past performance, focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant to the Mission Capability subfactors and Cost/Price Factor. The Mission Capability subfactors are of equal importance in the past performance evaluation. The Cost/Price factor is of less importance than the Mission Capability subfactors.

b. Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a) (2), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the Offeror’s past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

c. The Government’s assessment will be based upon, but not limited to, (1) Volume IV of the Offeror’s proposal, (2) CPARs, (3) DCMA input, (4) interviews with program managers and contracting officers, (5) quality of deliverables, and (6) results of the Offeror’s SDR and MCEM Prototype Demonstration.

d. Where the Government’s review indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken by the Offeror (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent performance to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness.

e. The Government will assess quality for each Mission Capability subfactor and the Cost/Price Factor using the ratings defined in Table 5, below.

Table 5 - Quality Assessment Scale

7.4 Performance Confidence Assessment

a. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance related to Mission Capability subfactors and the Cost/Price factor, the resulting Performance Confidence Assessment is made at the Past Performance factor level and represents an overall evaluation of the Offeror’s performance.

b. The Government will assign the Offeror one of the Performance Confidence Assessment ratings defined in Table 6, below.

Table 6 - Performance Confidence Assessments