20100416_AMEND0007_MSC_NGW_Section_M.pdf

Attachment P

SECTION M: EVALUATION CRITERIA AND STANDARDS

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

a. Basis for Contract Award

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the DISA Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DARS).

These regulations are available electronically at http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

The contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to that offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation requirements, is determined to provide the “best value” to the

Government, price and non-price factors considered. The “best value with tradeoff” determination will be based on the merits of the offer and the offeror’s capability. The “best value” may not necessarily be the proposal offering the lowest cost, nor receiving the highest ranking in the non-price factors.

A contract 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 Military Sealift Command (MSC) the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher-rated and/or higher-priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, as long as the Source Selection

Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the higher-ranked technical/management, overall business approach, and/or greater past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the price difference. 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 one contract for the Next Generation Wideband (NGW)

Program; however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all.

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 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 does not meet the

Government’s requirements and is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

e. Use of Non-Governmental Advisors

The Government intends to use Non-Government Advisors. These advisors will provide technical, engineering, policy, regulatory, and process support for SATCOM systems and platforms. Company names and company addresses of Non-Government advisors are:

Booz Allen Hamilton

One Skyline Place

5205 Leesburg Pike. Suite 402

Falls Church, VA

STF

804 Professional Place West

Chesapeake, VA 23320

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)

1220 12th Street, SE, Washington, DC 20003

Kepler Research, Inc.

1530 Wilson Blvd. Suite 600

Arlington, VA 22209

ManTech International Corporation

12015 Lee Jackson Highway

Fairfax (Corp HQ), Virginia 22033

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

a. Evaluation Factors, Subfactors, and Relative Importance

(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.

Factor 1: Technical/Management

Subfactor 1: System Performance

Subfactor 2: Operation and Maintenance

Subfactor 3: Transition Plan

Subfactor 4: Management Approach

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

(2) Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The evaluation of Factor 1

(Technical/Management) and Factor 2 (Past Performance), when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 3 (Price). Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2. Factor 1 includes subfactors. The subfactors under Factor 1 are listed in order of decreasing importance. Further, each subfactor under Factor 1 includes components; the components are equal in importance within each subfactor and will not be rated.

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

b. Technical/Management Factor

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed solution to determine the extent to which it meets, exceeds, or fails to meet the NGW objectives and constraints specified in the Statement of

Objectives as well as the risks (i.e., weaknesses) of the offeror’s proposed approach. The following subfactors will be rated:

Subfactor 1-1 System Performance

Analysis of the offeror’s technical solution (including the SAS and other relevant documents submitted by the offeror) to identify how well the system architecture meets all the requisite objectives, constraints, requirements, and specifications in the Military Sealift Command’s

Statement of Objectives (SOO). The evaluation of Subfactor 1-1 will include an assessment of the components below.

a. Service availability and service quality per-mobile-platform.

b. Total primary Committed Information Rate (CIR) and secondary Burstable

Information Rate (BIR) bandwidth available to each mobile platform (ship or MSOC van). The preferred per-ship CIR is 64 Kbps (symmetric), ideally providing assured access without contention, whether during session initiation or information transfer.

The preferred per-ship minimum for BIR is 256 Kbps downlink/128 Kbps uplink.

c. Ability to multicast large data packages (estimated maximum size of 500MB) to the fleet (e.g., software updates/patches/service packs) per-mobile-platform.

d. Coverage area with emphasis on the concentration areas (see SOO Section 6.8), commercial sea routes, and areas of publicly disclosed major Naval operations. Land mass coverage is littoral with the exception of the Mobile Sealift Operations Center

(MSOC) vans, which operate inland occasionally (98% littoral, 2% inland).

e. Service delivery, as necessary, to provide highest data rates in the aforementioned concentration areas (see SOO Section 6.8), commercial sea routes, areas of publicly disclosed major Naval operations, and land mass coverage where MSOC vans operate. Best effort service delivery provided in all other covered regions.

f. Flexibility in allocating primary and contingent space segment resources to maintain full service across the MSC fleet as ship deployments change locations.

Formatted: Highlight

g. The means to acquire additional satellite bandwidth to support unanticipated growth in fleet size or per-ship consumption as it pertains to scalability, capacity, and allocation of contingent space segment resources (i.e., surge).

h. The effectiveness of terminals and other proposed equipment to provide service requested in the SOO.

i. Voice and data communications capacity, including efficiency and cost effectiveness of System Performance.

Subfactor 1-2 Operations and Maintenance (O&M).

Analysis of the degree to which the offeror’s proposed technical solution for staging, delivery, and O&M support processes meet all the requisite objectives, constraints, requirements, and specifications in the RFP. The evaluation of Subfactor 1-2 will include an assessment of the following components.

a. Flexibility to maintain full system support process and team service across the MSC fleet as ship deployments change locations.

b. Offeror’s ability to minimize the role of shore and shipboard personnel in satellite communication (SATCOM) sustainment activities.

c. Offeror’s ability to meet DoD information assurance requirements as defined in the

SOO.

d. Policy for warranties and non-obsolescence. This includes a process for addressing parts obsolescence, including periodic technology updates for commercial hardware and software changes through the operational life of the system.

Subfactor: 1-3. Transition Plan

The evaluation of Subfactor 1-3 includes an assessment of the offeror’s Transition Plan and related documents (WBSs, OCD Plan, and installation package). The offeror’s Transition Plan will articulate an efficient approach to deliver a full system-wide operational capability no later than December 2012. The evaluation of Subfactor 1-3 will include an assessment of the following components.

a. Efficient integration strategy

b. Performance metrics and means to meet them

c. Utilization of government and contractor resources to accomplish the work

d. Articulation of risks and ways to mitigate the risks

e. Clear understanding of MSC operational and mission requirements and how they impact the transition

With respect to the transition plan evaluation criteria, the primary document is the transition plan and the related documents provide further details on the approach as referenced in the transition plan.

Subfactor 1-4 Management Approach

Analysis of the Offeror’s key personnel, management plan, and ability to establish management tools and metrics necessary in the offeror’s overall management approach (as reflected in

Offeror’s proposed PWS and QASP). The evaluation of Subfactor 1-4 will include an assessment of the following components.

a. A comprehensive and effective management structure for the NGW program.

b. An effective resource management structure to include key personnel and subcontractors.

c. A fully developed and comprehensive PWS that addresses all SOO objectives.

d. A comprehensive QASP that includes qualitative performance measures tied to specified outcomes consistent with the PWS.

The technical/management evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments--technical/management color/adjectival rating and technical/management risk rating.

(1) Technical/Management Rating. The technical/management rating provides an assessment of the offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s requirements. Each technical/management subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in the DISA Source Selection

Procedures, paragraph 4.5.1.1, Table 1 – Technical/Management Ratings, excerpted below.

The technical/management ratings focus on the strengths, deficiencies, and uncertainties of the offeror’s proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the technical/management subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the technical/management factor.

Table 1. Technical/Management Ratings

TABLE 1: TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Exceptional Exceeds specified minimum performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the Government. A proposal must have one or more strengths and no deficiencies to receive a blue.

Green Acceptable Meets specified minimum performance or capability requirements. A proposal must have no deficiencies to receive a green but may have one or more strengths.

Yellow Marginal There is doubt regarding whether an aspect of the proposal meets a specified minimum performance or capability requirements, but any such uncertainty is correctable.

Red Unacceptable Fails to meet specified minimum performance or capability requirements. The proposal has one or more deficiencies and is not awardable.

(2) Technical/Management Risk Rating. The Technical/Management Risk evaluation focuses on the weaknesses associated with an offeror’s proposed approach and includes an assessment of the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The technical/management subfactors will receive one of the risk ratings described in the DISA

Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 4.5.1.2, Table 2 – Technical/Management Risk Ratings, excerpted below. They focus on the risks, i.e., weaknesses and significant weaknesses, of the offeror’s proposed approach to each of the technical/management subfactors. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror’s proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

Table 2. Technical/Management Risk Ratings

c. Past Performance Factor

The past performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs based on a demonstrated record of performance, including cost and schedule. The evaluation will include an assessment of recency, relevance, and quality. A Performance Confidence Assessment is then assigned. The past performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet users’ needs. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall past performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the technical/management subfactors, The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to an individual contract basis. The Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense

Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

(1) Recency Assessment

TABLE 2: TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT RISK RATINGS

Rating Description

Low Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Extraordinary contractor emphasis and rigorous Government monitoring may be able to overcome difficulties.

Unacceptable 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.

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past 3 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(2) 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/management subfactors including their relative order of importance. For each of the recent past performances reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the technical/management subfactors (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this procurement may be considered). The Past

Performance Information Sheets and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. If a work effort is rated Not Relevant, the quality of performance will not be evaluated and the effort will not be considered further in making the Performance Confidence Assessment. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Degree Description

HIGHLY RELEVANT (HR) Past/present performance effort involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. To be considered highly relevant, the offeror must demonstrate performance in at least four of the following (a through h) and must demonstrate performance in i and j.

a. Centralized management of voice and data communications via satellite bandwidth (e.g., C, Ku, L) and terrestrial circuits on a worldwide basis for a single customer. [SP1], [OM5], [OM6]

b. Maintaining full service among users in a dynamic environment as user terminals move from one satellite footprint into another (i.e., six of seven continents and three of four oceans) for an enterprise consumer (i.e., multiple companies in multiple global locations) in various weather conditions (i.e., adverse weather). [SP2], [OM1]

c. Providing support for unanticipated growth (i.e., more bandwidth and larger number of terminals installed, globally with some occurring simultaneously under a compressed time schedule. [SP3], [TP1]

d. Applying Department of Defense (DoD) IA requirements to commercial products. [OM3]

e. Providing a policy for warranties and a process for addressing parts obsolescence (i.e., periodic technology updates for commercial hardware and software changes through the operational life of the system). [OM4]

f. Providing end-to-end services with minimal operator intervention required for day-to-day SATCOM sustainment activities. [OM2]

g. Providing end-to-end satellite and terrestrial commercial communications services for at least 25 terminals concurrently. [OM7]

h. Providing LES services or performance and/or monitoring of end-to-end services. [OM8]

i. Providing an efficient transition that resulted in a full system-wide operational capability within deadline. [TP1-4]

j. Provides sound commercial SATCOM program management. [MA1-5]

RELEVANT (R) Past/present performance effort involved some of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. To be considered relevant, the offeror must demonstrate performance in at least three of the following (a through h) and must demonstrate performance in i or j:

Formatted: Highlight

Formatted: Underline, Highlight

Formatted: Highlight

Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 9 pt, Highlight

Formatted: Highlight

Deleted: To be considered relevant, the offeror hould, at a minimum, demonstrate performance in four or more of the following including items i and j:¶

Deleted: To be considered somewhat relevant, the offeror should, at a minimum, demonstrate performance in two or three of the following:

Degree Description

a. Centralized management of voice and data communications via satellite bandwidth and terrestrial circuits on a multi-regional basis for multiple customers. [SP1], [OM5], [OM6]

b. Maintaining full service among users in a dynamic environment. [SP2], [OM1]

c. Providing support for unanticipated growth in a timely manner. [SP3], [TP1]

d. Applying Department of Defense (DoD) IA requirements to commercial products. [OM3]

e. Providing a policy for warranties and/or a process for addressing parts obsolescence. [OM4]

f. Providing end-to-end services with effective operator intervention required for day-to-day SATCOM sustainment activities. [OM2]

g. Providing end-to-end satellite and terrestrial commercial communications services. [OM7]

h. Providing LES services or performance and/or monitoring of end-to-end services. [OM 8]

i. Providing an efficient transition that resulted in a full system-wide operational capability within deadline. [TP1-4]

j. Provides sound commercial SATCOM program management. [MA1-5]

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT (SR) Past/present performance effort involved some of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. To be considered somewhat relevant, the offeror must demonstrate performance in at least two of the following (a through h):

a. Centralized management of voice and data communications via satellite bandwidth and terrestrial circuits on a multi-regional basis for multiple customers.

[SP1], [OM5], [OM6]

b. Maintaining full service among users in a dynamic environment. [SP2], [OM1]

c. Providing support for unanticipated growth in a timely manner. [SP3], [TP1]

d. Applying Department of Defense (DoD) IA requirements to commercial products. [OM3]

e. Providing a policy for warranties and/or a process for addressing parts obsolescence. [OM4]

f. Providing end-to-end services with effective operator intervention required for day-to-day SATCOM sustainment activities. [OM2]

g. Providing end-to-end satellite and terrestrial commercial communications services. [OM7]

h. Providing LES services or performance and/or monitoring of end-to-end services [OM8]

NOT RELEVANT (NR) Past/present performance effort did not involve any magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires

NOTE: The bracketed references at the end of the lettered text refer to specific questions on the Past Performance Questionnaire that relate to that text. For example, the bracketed references in the following text, “Centralized management of voice and data communications via satellite bandwidth (e.g., C, Ku, L) and terrestrial circuits on a worldwide basis for a single customer. [SP1], [OM5], [OM6]” refer to System Performance question SP1, and Operations and Maintenance questions OM5 and OM6 in the Past Performance Questionnaire.

(3) Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent and relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the technical/management subfactors (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this procurement may be considered). The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the Past Performance Questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, Formatted: Highlight

Deleted: To be considered somewhat relevant, the offeror should demonstrate performance in one or more of the following:¶ 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. 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, Subcontracting Management and price/schedule problems. 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 problems, 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 performance 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.

(4) Performance Confidence Assessment. 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/management subfactors, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor

Formatted: Highlight 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 favorable past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

The past performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessment ratings described in the DISA Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 4.5.2.7, Table 3 – Performance

Confidence Assessments, excerpted below.

Table 3. Performance Confidence Assessments

TABLE 3: PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE

No performance record is identifiable or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

d. Price Factor

1. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

2. 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, realistic, and complete.

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. Normally, price reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

3. The Government may evaluate the realism of each offeror’s proposed prices. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed prices 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/management proposal. The price realism assessment will consider technical/management risks (weaknesses) identified during the evaluation of the proposal.

4. 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 proposal risk rating, the offeror’s lack of understanding of the technical/management requirements of the applicable technical/management subfactor.

5. The Government will evaluate the affordability of each offeror’s cost/price proposal by comparing the total proposed price to the budgetary information included in the solicitation. The evaluation shall be made based on a separate comparison for each fiscal year of the contract as well as a comparison between the total price (or proposed maximum contract Government liability) and the total budgetary information included in the solicitation.

6. The Government will verify that all solicitation requirements have been priced, figures are correctly calculated, and prices are presented in a clear and useful format.

7. The price evaluation will include calculation of the total Discounted Life Cycle Cost

(DLCC) from the offeror’s proposed prices listed in Section B. Individual sub-CLIN prices will be added to obtain the total CLIN price. CLIN prices will be totaled to derive the total DLCC. The DLCC calculation will include a CLIN-by-CLIN summary and summary by CLIN with DLCC applied. Totals thereby calculated will include Total

Actual, Total DLCC, Summary by CLIN, Summary by CLIN with DLCC applied.

8. The evaluation period will be 8 years – one 4-year base period and four 1-year option periods. Although the price evaluation period will be 8 years, this should not be construed to mean that all option years would be exercised. Price discounts for particular calendar months or contract months will not be evaluated. Based upon the 2010 mid-year nominal interest rates listed in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-

94, the discount factors shown below will be used for evaluation. No color ratings will be assigned to the price evaluation.

Evaluation Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Evaluation Months 1-12 13-24 25-36 37-48 49-60 61-72 73-84 85-96

Discount Factors .982 .948 .915 .883 .852 .822 .793 .765

The following assumptions will be used to determine the DLCC for each proposal:

a. Evaluation Quantities for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) in each Contract Year are included in the Section B Price Schedule to the right of the TOTAL PRICE column.

b. Bandwidth (CLINs x001–x032) Monthly Recurring Charges (MRC) will be evaluated beginning in Month 7. Non-Recurring Charges (NRC) will be evaluated in the first

Contract Year. For Contract Years 2–8, MRCs will be evaluated for a period of

12 months each year. Offerors shall detail how bandwidth charges are incurred.

c. Terrestrial Circuitry (CLIN x033) MRCs will be evaluated beginning in Month 7. NRCs will be evaluated in the first Contract Year. In Contract Years 2–8, MRCs will be evaluated for a period of 12 months each year.

d. Management Charges (CLIN x034) MRCs will be evaluated beginning in Month 1 for a period of 12 months in contract year 1. NRCs will be evaluated in the first Contract Year.

In Contract Years 2–8, MRCs will be evaluated for a period of 12 months each year.

e. Shipboard/Van Equipment (CLINs x035AA–x065AA), Shipboard Training (CLINs x035AB–x065AB), On-Board Repairs (CLINs x035AC–x065AC), and Support

Equipment, Tools, & Test Equipment (CLINs x035AD–x065AD), and Installation

(CLINs x035AF-BF–x065AF-BF) NRCs will be evaluated in the Contract Year they are installed as delineated in the evaluation quantities.

f. Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Installations (CLINs x035AE–x065AE) and testing will occur in Months 3–6 in the first Contract Year. NRCs associated with these installations will be evaluated in Contract Year 1. Per the Statement of Objectives

(SOO), three ships have been selected for the LRIP Installations and are reflected in the

Evaluation Quantities in the Price Schedule.

g. Shipboard/Van Equipment Maintenance (CLINs x066–x069) will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation schedule. Maintenance in Contract Year 1 will begin in

Month 7. NRCs will be evaluated in the first Contract Year. In Contract Years 2–8, MRCs will be evaluated for a period of 12 months each year. As detailed in SOO 6.7, all contract-provided equipment shall have a minimum 2-year warranty effective from

System Operation Verification Test (SOVT)/Government acceptance.

h. Fleet SATCOM System Equipment (CLINs x070AA–x071AA); Training (CLINs x068AE–x069AE); On-Board Repairs (CLINs x070AF–x071AF); Support Equipment, Tools, & Test Equipment (CLINs x069AG–x070AG), and Installation (CLINs x070AH– x071AH) NRCs will be evaluated as purchased in Contract Year 1. SATCOM equipment maintenance (CLINs x070B-D and x071B-D) will begin in Month 7. NRCs will be evaluated in the first Contract Year. In Contract Years 2–8, MRCs will be evaluated for a period of 12 months each year.

i. Personnel Support Services (CLIN x072) evaluation quantities are listed to the right of the TOTAL PRICE column.

j. Training (CLIN x073) NRCs will be evaluated in the evaluation quantities.

k. Integration (CLIN x074) will be evaluated as an NRC occurring in base year. Offerors shall clearly identify their recurring and non-recurring integration costs for each Contract

Year.

l. Travel (CLIN x075) is reserved for Government-directed contractor travel if required. If

Government-directed contractor travel is required, those travel costs will be paid in accordance with the Joint Travel Regulations and CLIN x075 will be excercised. All travel necessary to provide services shall be included in the offeror’s proposal and will not be paid via this CLIN.

m. CDRLs (CLIN x076) MRC/NRCs will be evaluated as indentified in the Evaluation

Quantities by Contract Year.

n. Upgrades/Enhancements (CLIN x077) will not be evaluated.

o. Portability CLINs 0078AC and AH will be evaluated using the following two scenarios:

Scenario 1 (CLIN 0078AC)

In the CONUS Area of Concentration, Option Year 1, the evaluation is leasing a quantity of forty (40) – 64 kbps Committed Downstream and Upstream increments. Diego Garcia is leasing a quantity of fifteen (15) – 64 kbps Committed Downstream and Upstream links.

Both bandwidth leases have been effective 6 months. The government has a requirement to port a quantity of six (6) - 64-kbps increments of Committed Downstream and Upstream bandwidth from the CONUS Area of Concentration to the Diego Garcia Area of

Concentration. This porting will become effective in Month 7 of Option Year 1 and will be effective for 6 months only. After the porting is complete, the CONUS Area of

Concentration will be leasing a quantity of thirty-four (34) – 64 kbps Committed

Downstream and Upstream increments and Diego Garcia will be leasing a quantity of twenty-one (21) – 64 kbps Committed Downstream and Upstream links. After the 6-month lease, the evaluation will revert to the evaluation quantities established in the price schedule.

Offerors shall provide the price in each Area of Concentration before the bandwidth is ported and the price for each Area of Concentration after the porting is completed. Explain in detail how MRC and NRC prices are derived referencing the CLINs in your proposal.

Scenario 2 (CLIN 0078AH)

In Option Year 2, the CONUS Area of Concentration is leasing a quantity of forty (40) – 64 kbps Committed Downstream and Upstream increments. Diego Garcia in Option Year 2 is leasing a quantity of fifteen (15) – 64 kbps Committed Downstream and Upstream links.

Both Areas of Concentration have been effective 6 months. The government has a requirement to port a quantity of six (6) - 64-kbps increments of Committed Downstream and Upstream from the Diego Garcia Area of Concentration to the CONUS Area of

Concentration. This porting will become effective in Month 7 of Option Year 2 and will be effective for 6 months only. After the porting is complete, the CONUS Area of

Concentration will be leasing a quantity of forty-six (46) – 64 kbps Committed Downstream and Upstream increments and Diego Garcia will be leasing a quantity of nine (9) – 64 kbps

Committed Downstream and Upstream links. Offerors shall provide the price in each Area of Concentration before the bandwidth is ported and the price for each Area of

Concentration after the porting is completed.

Explain in detail how MRC and NRC prices are derived referencing CLIN 0078AC and AH in your proposal.. Portability of bandwidth is understood to be on an “as-available basis.”

p. Remote Ordering Fee (CLIN X080) will not be evaluated.

q. Operational Capabilities Demonstration (CLIN X079) will not be evaluated.

r. Custom Duties / Taxes (CLIN X081) will not be evaluated. These charges will be pass through with supporting documentation.

s. Intergration / Engineering (CLIN X082) will be evaluated as an NRC in Base Year 1.

t. Ship-Board Lab (CLIN X083) will be evaluated as an NRC in Base Year 1.

u. MSOC Van Lab (CLIN X084) will be evaluated as an NRC in Base Year 1.

9. In accordance with FAR 15.404(g), the price evaluation will include analysis to determine if the prices are unbalanced. The Government will consider the risks to the Government associated with unbalanced pricing in determining the competitive range and in making the source selection decision and will consider whether award of the contract will result in paying unreasonably high prices for contract performance. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determined that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the

Government.

10. The price reasonableness determination will consider the offeror’s summary description of the analysis used to review subcontractor quotes and method used to select sources.

11. The quantities listed in the price schedule are the Government’s best estimates of their intended usage. They are for evaluation purposes only and do not represent the minimum or maximum quantities which will be ordered. The quantities listed in the Bandwidth Quantity

Schedule (BW_QUANTITY_SCHEDULE) tab in the Section B Price Schedule are the

Government’s projected usage.

e. 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. Discussions may occur in order to fully assess and evaluate the merits of proposals submitted.

f. Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical/management 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. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.