Section_L_.doc

Attachment O

Section L: Information to Offerors and Instructions for Proposal Preparation

1. Program Structure and Objectives The acquisition will provide a new solution for broadband satellite communications (SATCOM) for the Military Sealift Command (MSC) ships afloat throughout the world’s oceans. The intent is to procure a turnkey solution for end-to-end Internet Protocol (IP) communications connecting the global MSC maritime/mobile platforms to their two, fixed shore-side Network Operation Centers (NOC). The successful offeror must propose a solution that includes satellite bandwidth (space segment), supporting hardware and software, and lifecycle support services. MSC is seeking a solution that meets or exceeds the following objectives:

A.

Offers per-ship voice and data communications capacity in an efficient and cost-effective manner to optimize:

1.

Service availability and quality of service (QoS).

2.

Total primary Committed Information Rate (CIR) and secondary Burstable Information Rate (BIR) bandwidth available to each ship. 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. MSC desires to maximize the amount of BIR bandwidth available within current budget constraints.

3.

The ability to multicast large data packages (estimated maximum size of 500MB) to the fleet (e.g., software updates/patches/service packs).

4.

Worldwide coverage area with emphasis on the ship 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 occasionally operate inland (98% littoral, 2% inland). Best effort coverage provided in all other regions in such a way that performance and costs are optimized.

5.

Service delivery, as necessary, to provide highest data rates in the aforementioned concentration areas, 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.

B.

Maximizes flexibility to maintain full service across the MSC fleet as ship deployments change locations (i.e., portability).

C.

Offers the means to acquire additional capacity to support unanticipated growth in fleet size or per-ship consumption (i.e., surge).

D.

Offers the flexibility to expand or contract service levels and quantities as new budgets are realized in out-years.

E.

Minimizes the role of shore and shipboard personnel in SATCOM sustainment activities. Special focus should be placed on minimizing activities associated with SATCOM coverage area and frequency band transitions.

F.

Threshold number of platforms to be installed and supported within the first 2 years following award should be the 68 vessels, 10 MSOC vans, and two labs currently equipped with the BEST infrastructure. During the period of performance, 100 platforms potentially installed and supported.

G.

Provides both operator and train-the-trainer Network Operation Center (NOC) and ship operations and maintenance training on an as needed basis.

H.

Provides shipboard post-installation hands-on systems operations and maintenance training.

I.

Provides a configuration baseline that is a top down breakdown description from the system level down to the Lowest Replaceable Unit (LRU) of the system.

1.1. Budget/Funding Information

For consideration in developing your proposal, the program/budget funding is as follows:

The MSC NGW SATCOM operating budget is shown in Figures A4-1 and A4-2.

Figure A4-1. MSC NGW Budget (Base Period)

Figure A4-2: MSC NGW Budget (Option Years)

MSC is currently funding the existing BEST system, with plans to ramp down support by 33% per year starting in FY2012.

2. General Instructions

This section of the Information to Offerors provides general guidance for preparing proposals as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the proposal. The offeror’s proposal must include all data and information requested by the RFP and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions.

a. The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror’s proposal.

b. Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed artwork, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

c. The proposal acceptance period is specified in Section A of the solicitation. The offeror shall make a clear statement in Section A of the proposal documentation volume that the proposal is valid through this date.

d. In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8 (Government Contract Files), the Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals. Unless the offeror requests otherwise, the Government will destroy extra copies of such unsuccessful proposals.

2.1. General Information

2.1.1 Point of Contact

The Contracting Officer (CO) is the sole point of contact for this procurement. Address any questions or concerns you may have to the CO. Written requests for clarification must be sent to:

Karen E. Kincaid (CO)

Defense Information Systems Agency/DITCO-Scott/PL8222

2300 East Drive. Bldg 3600

Scott Air Force Base, IL 62225

2.1.2 Debriefings

The CO will promptly notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range, whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505. Offerors excluded from the competitive range may request a pre-award debriefing or they may choose to wait until after the source selection decision to request a post-award debriefing. However, offerors excluded from the competitive range are entitled to no more than one debriefing for each proposal. The CO will notify unsuccessful offerors in the competitive range of the source selection decision in accordance with FAR 15.506. Upon such notification, unsuccessful offerors may request and receive a debriefing. Offerors desiring a debriefing must make their request in accordance with the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable.

2.1.3 Discrepancies

If an offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the CO in writing with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the offeror is asking the CO to consider as related to the omission or error.

2.1.4 Electronic Reference Documents

All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the Federal Business Opportunities Web site at http://www.fedbizopps.gov. Potential offerors are encouraged to subscribe to real-time email notifications when information has been posted to the Web site for this solicitation.

2.1.5 Oral Presentations

Not applicable.

2.1.6 Communications

Exchanges of source selection information between Government and offerors will be controlled by the CO. Email may be used to transmit such information to offerors only if the email can be sent and received encrypted and includes “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 & 3.104” in the subject line. Otherwise, source selection information will be transmitted via overnight delivery/U.S. mail/FedEx, or uploaded to the Web site for this solicitation, https://www.ditco.disa.mil/dcop/public/ASP/requirements.asp, or faxed to 618-229-9174.

2.2. Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits

The offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization table (Table 2.2). The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the number of copies as specified in Table 2.2. The attachments identified in the table shall be separately bound in three-ring, loose-leaf binders, as necessary. The contents of each proposal volume are described in the subsequent sections of this “Information to Offerors and Instructions for Proposal Preparation” document and as noted in the table below.

Table 2.2. Proposal Organization

1 Upload to DITCO Web Page 1 Paper

1 Upload to DITCO Web Page 3 Paper

1 Upload to DITCO Web Page 1 Paper No Limit

1 Upload to DITCO Web Page 1 Paper No Limit

1 Upload to DITCO Web Page 1 Paper No Limit

1 Upload to DITCO Web Page 3 Paper

2.2.1 Page Limitations

Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal and excess paper copies will be returned to the offeror as soon as practicable. Page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs). The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the offerors. Each page shall be counted except the following: cover pages, tables of contents, tabs, divider sheets, glossaries, and resumes. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals.

2.2.1.1. Page Size and Format

(a) A page is defined as each face of a sheet of paper containing information. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, not including foldouts. Pages shall be single-spaced. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text shall be in Times New Roman font and be no less than 12 point. Tracking, kerning, and leading values shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software. Use at least 1-inch margins on the top and bottom and ¾-inch side margins. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. These page format restrictions shall apply to responses to ENs. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals.

(b) Legible tables, charts, graphs, and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 11 x 17 inches in size. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume and count as a single page. Foldout pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams, and schematics not for pages of text. For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be in Arial font and be no less than 9 point. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals.

2.2.2 Cost or Pricing Information

All cost or pricing information shall be addressed ONLY in the Cost/Price Volume.

2.2.3 Classified Information

Not applicable.

2.2.4 Cross-Referencing

To the greatest extent possible, each volume shall be written on a standalone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with a minimum of cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation that is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal.

The offeror shall complete the cross-reference matrix provided by RFP, SOO/PWS, and/or specification paragraph number, the corresponding proposal paragraph in that section which addresses the referenced item.

2.2.5 Indexing

Each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections.

2.2.6 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, and with an explanation for each. Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

2.2.7 Binding and Labeling

Each volume of the proposal should be separately bound in a three-ring, loose leaf binder permitting the volume to lie flat when open. Staples shall not be used. A cover sheet should be bound in each book, clearly marked as to volume number, title, copy number, solicitation identification, and the offeror’s name. The same identifying data should be placed on the spine of each binder. All unclassified document binders shall have a color other than red or other applicable security designation colors. Be sure to apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(e), Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data, and FAR 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection Information.

2.3. Electronic Offers

The offeror shall submit volumes I through V in electronic format on CDs. The content and page size of electronic copies (uploaded to DITCO Web Page and CD’s) must be identical to the hard copies. For electronic copies, indicate on each CD the volume number and title. Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including subfactors, exhibits, annexes, and attachments, if any. Each volume shall be in a different directory on a CD. If files are compressed, the necessary decompression program must be included. The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office Word 2003, MS Office Excel 2003, MS Office Project 2003, and MS Office Power Point 2003, as applicable. In the event that hard copies and electronic copies of a proposal are submitted and if there are any discrepancies between the hard copies and the electronic copies of the proposal, the original hard copies will be used for evaluation.

2.4. Distribution

The “original” proposal shall be identified. Proposals shall be addressed to the CO and mailed or hand carried to:

Karen E. Kincaid (CO) Defense Information Systems Agency/DITCO-Scott/PL8222

2300 East Drive. Bldg 3600

Scott Air Force Base, IL 62225

3. Volume I ‑ Executive Summary

In the executive summary volume, the offeror shall provide the following information:

3.1. Narrative Summary

The narrative summary of the entire proposal should be concise, to include addressing the significant risks, and highlighting any key or unique features, excluding cost/price. The salient features should tie in with Section M evaluation factors/subfactors. Any summary material presented here shall not be considered as meeting the requirements for any portions of other volumes of the proposal.

3.2. Table of Contents

Include a master table of contents of the entire proposal.

4. Volume II ‑ Technical/Management Volume

4.1. General

The Technical/Management Volume should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. Your responses will be evaluated against the technical/management subfactors defined in Section M, Evaluation Criteria and Standards. Using the instructions provided below, provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing/satisfying these subfactors. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By your proposal submission, you are representing that your firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. It is not necessary or desirable for you to tell us so in your proposal. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

4.2. Format and Specific Content

4.2.1 Technical/Management

In the Technical/Management volume, address your proposed approach to meeting or exceeding the minimum performance or capability requirements of each technical/management subfactor, as well as the risks in your proposed approach in terms of technical/performance, cost, and/or schedule.

4.2.1.1. Technical/Management Risk

Address technical/management risk by identifying those aspects of the proposal you consider to have the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, poor performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Classify each risk in accordance with the DISA Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 4.5.1.2 (Table 4.1).

Table 4.1. Technical/Management Ratings

TABLE 4.1: TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT RISK RATINGS

Provide the rationale for each risk and its rating, including quantitative estimates of the impact on cost, schedule, and performance. Describe the impact of each identified risk in terms of its potential to interfere with or prevent the successful accomplishment of other contract requirements (e.g., SOO or specification requirements), whether or not those requirements are identified as subfactors. Propose a realistic “workaround” or risk mitigators for identified risks that will eliminate or reduce risk to an acceptable level. Identify and classify any new risks introduced by such risk mitigation.

4.2.2 Volume Organization

The Technical/Management volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

Table of Contents

List of Tables and Drawings

Glossary Compliance and Cross Reference Matrix

Section 1: Technical Solution/Management Approach

Section 2: Operational Capabilities Demonstration (OCD) Appendix 1: Performance Work Statement (PWS)

Appendix 2: Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

Appendix 3: System Architecture Specification (SAS)

Appendix 4: Proposed Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) Appendix 5: Notional Next Generation Wideband (NGW) System Installation Plan for a Military Sealift Command (MSC) Ship

Appendix 6: NGW System Training Plan

Appendix 7: OCD Plan

Appendix 8: Transition Plan

Appendix 9: Offeror’s Coverage Map

Appendix 10: Technical Management Risk Matrix

The appendices support the sections.

Compliance and Cross Reference Matrix

The offeror shall fill out the Compliance and Cross Reference Matrix (see Section J, Attachment C) indicating the proposal reference information as it relates to the SOO, CLIN numbers, Sections L and M, CDRL references found therein, and the corresponding paragraph in the Technical volume which addresses the referenced item.

If this matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over this matrix. In addition, to the extent this matrix discloses details as to the extent or manner by which the Government intends to evaluate offeror’s proposals for award, Section M references in the matrix are for information purposes only and the Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with the provisions of the Section M of the solicitation.

Section 1: Technical Solution/Management Approach In the Technical Solution/Management Approach, the offeror shall provide a Performance Work Statement (PWS) to address the proposed approach for meeting the performance or capability requirements of each Technical Solution/Management Approach subfactor, as well as the risks in the proposed approach in terms of technical solution/performance, schedule, price, and management. Offeror’s proposals shall demonstrate a clear understanding of the technical requirements and a comprehensive, systematic approach to accomplishing tasks in all the technical areas identified in the Statement of Objectives (SOO). The proposed PWS shall consist of tasking statements. Each tasking statement shall reference the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) items that will be delivered by that task, as applicable. The tasking statements in the PWS and Schedule sections shall use a common numbering system. The PWS shall include separate sections for all tasks associated with Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP), installation, and sustainment tasks in order to clearly differentiate the tasks to be performed during each phase of the contract. Each tasking statement shall reference the CDRL items that will be delivered by that task, as applicable, and shall use a common numbering system as the schedule section. The offeror shall follow the PWS template provided in Section J, Attachment H. Offerors who do not follow the template will be negatively scored.

In addition, the offeror shall include a Service Level Agreement (SLA) in the QASP. The SLA shall include information pertaining to services, responsibilities, guarantees, conditions, customer service, and warranties.

Subfactor 1: System Performance

The offeror shall describe the proposed NGW solution and how it meets the performance objectives and constraints pertaining to system performance listed in the SOO.

The offeror is required to meet all technical requirements pertaining to system performance, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale in the Solicitation Exceptions Table in accordance with Section 7.2, Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements of this document.

The offeror shall provide a System Architecture Specification (SAS) in accordance with the instructions for Appendix 3 in this document. The proposed SAS shall be attached as Appendix 3.

The offeror shall provide a coverage chart or map that depicts throughputs or other means of capacities such as volume, globally.

Subfactor 2: Operations and Maintenance

a. The offeror shall describe the proposed NGW solution and how it meets the performance objectives and constraints pertaining to operations and maintenance listed in the SOO.

b. Offerors are required to comply with all operations and maintenance constraints identified in the SOO, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale in the Solicitation Exceptions Table in accordance with Section 7.2, Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements, of this document.

c. Offeror shall provide a sound process for the integration of changes such as parts obsolescence and technology upgrades or enhancements.

d. The offeror shall present an NGW System Training Plan. Training requirements are listed in Section 5 of the SOO. The proposed NGW System Training Plan shall be attached as Appendix 6.

e. The offeror shall describe their test and verification process to demonstrate how the NGW System will be qualified to meet MSC performance objectives and constraints. The offeror shall describe their process for analyzing test failures and implementing corrective actions.

f. The offeror’s approach shall address technical challenges and associated key processes. The offeror shall provide descriptions of processes that emphasize systems integration and operations best practices, to include a description of required oversight (reviews and audits), risk management, and appropriate reporting procedures.

Subfactor 3: Transition Plan

a. The offeror shall provide a detailed transition methodology, in logical sequence, to ensure the tasks/subtasks associated with the transition to the NGW system occur without interruption or degradation of service levels.

b. The offeror shall include the Government resources required for the proposed transition plan.

c. The offeror shall present proposed WBS(s) as Appendix 4. Further instructions are explained in Appendix 4 instructions.

d. The offeror shall present a notional NGW Systems Installation Plan for the MSC fleet (and additional terminal locations as specified).

e. The offeror shall present a Transition Plan.

f. The offeror shall include the associated risks, issues, and technical challenges associated to key processes and risk mitigation strategies pertained to the transition plan.

g. The offeror shall present a Notional NGW System Installation Plan for an MSC ship as Appendix 4.

h. The offeror shall present an Operational Capabilities Demonstration (OCD) plan as Appendix 7. Further instructions are explained in Section 2.

Subfactor 4: Management Approach a.

The offeror shall provide their management approach for the NGW program. The offeror’s approach shall address technical challenges and associated key management processes. The offeror shall provide descriptions of processes that emphasize program management best practices, to include a description of required oversight (reviews and audits), risk management, and appropriate reporting procedures.

b.

The offeror shall use the SOO to propose a QASP in accordance with Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) (Section J, Attachment E). The proposed QASP shall include an SLA as well as provide information to assure the Government that systematic quality assurance methods are used to monitor this contract and subsequent task orders. The intent of a QASP is for the offeror to perform in accordance with the performance metrics and ensure the Government receives the quality of services called for in the contract. The offeror shall follow the QASP template provided in Section J, Attachment I.

c.

Subcontractor Management: The offeror shall describe their subcontractor/vendor management program/process, identify all subcontractors/vendors, and include a description of the processes used to flow down requirements and to manage subcontractor/vendor performance. The offeror shall identify specific requirements for each subcontractor. The offeror shall explain how the subcontractors/vendors are integrated into the team and management processes.

Technical Solution/Management Risk

The offeror shall address any technical solution risk or management approach risk for the proposed solution and each subfactor. Risk is defined as the potential of disrupted schedule, increased price, poor performance, the need for increase Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The table below contains a list of potential risks associated to this contract identified by the Government. The offeror shall provide the rationale for each risk and describe the impact in terms of its potential to interfere with or prevent the successful accomplishment of any tasks. Suggest a realistic workaround or mitigation for each risk in order to eliminate or reduce each identified risk to an acceptable level, where possible. Identify and classify any new risk introduced by such risk mitigation.

If additional risks are identified by the offeror or are specific to the offeror’s proposal, address them in the proposal with proposed mitigation strategy.

Potential risks identified by the Government:

· Terminal set not able to provide service requested in SOO

· Sub-optimal bandwidth for given funding level

· System service levels not sufficiently flexible

· Full system service not sustainable

· Premature solution obsolescence

· Solution requires undue time commitment from shore and

· Shipboard personnel to sustain satellite communication (SATCOM) activities

· Insufficient operations, maintenance training

· System service levels not sufficiently flexible

· Full system service not sustainable

· Premature solution obsolescence

· Insufficient configuration baseline

· Solution requires undue time commitment from shore and

· shipboard personnel to sustain SATCOM activities

· environment to meet compressed time schedule

· Terminal set not able to provide service requested in SOO

· environment to meet compressed time schedule

· Inadequate network oversight and reporting to meet MSC needs

· System service levels not sufficiently flexible

Section 2: Operational Capabilities Demonstration (OCD) 2-1. The Awardee will be required to successfully demonstrate operational capability of the proposed solution within 14 calendar days after receipt of the signed contract award. The Government reserves the right to terminate the contract under the Termination for the Convenience of the Government clause of the contract in the event that the awardee is unable to successfully demonstrate operational capability by passing the Operational Capabilities Demonstration (OCD). If the awardee is unable to pass OCD within 14 calendar days after contract award, a modification may be executed terminating all CLINs exercised in the base year, except CLIN 0077 “OCD Demonstration.” CLIN 0077 “OCD Demonstration” will be due to the awardee as settlement in full for all cost incurred by the awardee performing the OCD. The maximum reimbursement from CLIN 0077 “OCD Demonstration” will be $24000.00 USD. If the contract is terminated because the awardee is unable to pass the OCD within the timeframe specified by the Government, another source selection will then be conducted.

2-2. The intent of the OCD is to ensure the capabilities proposed by the offeror to meet the requirements in the SOO operate effectively as described in the offeror’s proposal:

2-3. The OCD Plan:

a. Offerors shall prepare and submit a proposed OCD plan as Appendix 7 to the offeror’s proposal.

b. The plan must be approved by the Government prior to execution. In any case, the Government evaluation team retains the right, even during the performance of the demonstration, to require that any RFP requirement and proposed capability germane to the NGW bid must be demonstrated.

2-4. OCD Evaluation

a. The OCD is evaluated as “Meets”/”Does Not Meet.”

b. The OCD will not be used as a further discriminatory evaluation tool.

c. The process for determining whether the OCD “Meets”/”Does Not Meet” is specified in Section M of this RFP.

2-5. The maximum reimbursement from CLIN 0077 “OCD Demonstration” will be $24000.00 USD.

2-6. The OCD should be conducted at a site free from outside interference. Participation should be limited to essential, key personnel directly involved in the demonstration. The Awardee will be required to successfully demonstrate operational capability of the proposed solution within 14 calendar days after receipt of the signed contract award. Time and date of the demonstration shall be mutually agreed upon by the apparent successful offeror and the CO.

2-7. The location of the awardee’s demonstration site shall be in the Continental United States and identified in the offeror’s OCD Plan.

2-8. The Government will attempt to reasonably accommodate an unforeseen event or circumstance that might prevent a demonstration, scheduled in good faith, from taking place. In such an event, the CO will determine reasonable accommodation and will attempt to reschedule the demonstration as soon as practical thereafter.

2-9. Inquiries concerning the demonstration shall be submitted in writing to the CO.

2-10. Instructions for performing the demonstration:

a. The evaluation team will arrive at the demonstration site at a time agreeable to the offeror and the Government and established in writing through the CO.

b. The offeror shall brief the Technical/Management Evaluation Team (TMET) prior to the initiation of the demonstration. The offeror shall use the briefing period to explain to the evaluation team how the demonstration will be conducted and to answer questions concerning the demonstration.

c. The offeror shall provide documentation of the demonstration system architecture, terminals, and any other tools or interfaces required for hardware or software integration. This documentation shall be available at the start of the demonstration. The documentation will be used as assurance that the components described in the proposal are part of the demonstration system and are ready for integration into the MSC environment. The Government may request an offeror to clarify or provide additional information regarding these components related to hardware and software integration prior to contract award.

d. From a cold start, the offeror shall demonstrate start-up and warm-up of equipment (including checkout), utilization of the equipment, shutdown, and protection of equipment when not in use. Offeror shall also demonstrate shipboard and Mobile Sealift Operation Center (MSOC) maintenance that would be expected by MSC personnel.

2-11. OCD Checklist:

Assumption regarding demonstration platform: The equivalent of one MSC Network Operations Center (NOC) and at least two MSC ships and one MSOC van (each with its own Radio Frequency [RF] link) must be defined for the demonstration platform. The awardee will also provide tools/platforms to inject and monitor Internet Protocol (IP) traffic over the RF links as well as analog phone equipment to be utilized for Voice over IP (VOIP) testing.

Demonstrative performance of the proposed SATCOM infrastructure to:

Acceptance criteria: When it is determined that the radome size and antenna weight meet requirements.

Acceptance criteria: When it is determined that the dish size and setup procedure meet requirements.

· Transitioning between satellite coverage areas and, if applicable, for transitioning between frequency bands (e.g., Ku-band to L-band). Note that it is understood that MSOC van connection initiation will require manual intervention by MSC operations personnel and that, once connection has been established, satellite coverage area transitions will not be required.

· Managing ship/MSOC link CIR allocation.

· Managing ship/MSOC link QoS.

Acceptance criteria: When it is determined that procedures that support SATCOM link initiation and sustainment between the MSC NOC and the fleet/MSOC vans can be successfully and reliably accomplished by MSC personnel assigned to SATCOM operations duties.

Acceptance criteria: When shore and ship/MSOC IP devices with MSC subnets assigned can successfully pass IP traffic over the SATCOM link provider-assigned IP subnet infrastructure.

Acceptance criteria: When it has been verified that the IP throughput rate for each link is always at least 64Kbps.

Acceptance criteria: When it has been verified that, as necessary to support surges in IP traffic volume, the IP throughput rate for each link can successfully exceed the assigned CIR.

Acceptance criteria: When multiple ships/MSOCs successfully receive the broadcast from the NOC.

Acceptance criteria: When shore and shipboard demonstration personnel can successfully initiate and maintain analog-phone based conversations over the VOIP infrastructure.

Acceptance criteria: When shore and shipboard demonstration personnel can successfully initiate and maintain analog-phone based conversations over the VOIP infrastructure while link-filling IP data is being injected over the SATCOM link.

Centrally manage SATCOM system status and performance monitoring. Minimum monitoring capability shall include:

Alarm (audio/visual) upon link disconnect or major throughput degradation.

Data transmission performance information (minimum/maximum/ average throughput) system uptime statistics.

Configuration management (hardware and software).

Observe the SATCOM system status and performance monitoring capabilities. Pay special attention to the electronic display and hardcopy reporting of the information for clarity, organization, and usefulness.

Acceptance criteria: When it has been verified that minimum monitoring capabilities have been successfully demonstrated.

Appendix 1: Performance Work Statement (PWS)

See Section 1: Technical Solution/Management Approach Appendix 2: Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) See Subfactor 4 – Management Approach for instructions.

Appendix 3: System Architecture Specification (SAS) The SAS is to aid the evaluators in determining if the offeror understands the SOO and if the proposed solution is sound. The SOO is in Section C of the solicitation. The offeror shall propose an NGW SAS that specifies a solution architecture that meets the performance requirements as specified in the PWS. The SAS shall be traceable to the SOO and the PWS. The format for the PWS is provided in Section J, Attachment H of this solicitation.

Appendix 4: Proposed Work Breakdown Structure The intent of this section is to obtain a functionally integrated understanding of the proposal with clear tracks between the technical, schedule, management, etc., in a way that provides the Government confidence that the NGW project is structured to be executable for the resources indicated. The offeror shall provide three WBSs.

Initial Operational Capability (IOC) WBS: The intent of this WBS is to provide insight into how the offeror would support MSC achieving Initial Operational Capability (IOC). For notional purposes, the OCD will be conducted within 14 calendar days after contract award. NGW IOC is achieved when the ships used in the LRIP are communicating to the NOCs via the NGW system in standard operating mode. The offeror shall begin the LRIP in Months 3–6 of the first Contract Year and assume an LRIP period length of at least 30 calendar days. For the purposes of proposal preparation, use an estimated contract award date of 1 July 2010. The WBS should take into account that installation of the NGW system components/equipment into the NOCs can start at contract award. The activities and tasks included in the WBS should be sufficient to succinctly demonstrate the offeror’s ability to achieve IOC of the NGW system on the date they propose. For reference, notional location of BEST-capable MSC ships is found in Section J, Attachment D.

Multiple Ship Installation WBS: The intent of this WBS is to provide insight regarding installation of multiple ships at different locations within a short period of time. Focus on the installation of the NGW system on five MSC ships after IOC during a 30-day period at two ports listed in the Contract Line Item Numbers (CLIN). Ports are available in both CONUS and OCONUS areas (see SOO Section 6.8). The activities and tasks included in the WBS should be sufficient to succinctly demonstrate the offeror’s ability to achieve Full Operational Capability (FOC) of the NGW systems on the ships within the period specified. Indicate which CLINs would need to be exercised in the WBS to meet the schedule. For reference, notional location of BEST-capable MSC ships is found in Section J, Attachment D.

Full Operational Capability (FOC) WBS: The intent of this WBS is to provide insight regarding the offerors proposed installation of the NGW system on the ships in an optimal manner. The WBS optimizes resources (including cost and time) to obtain FOC given the notional location of the BEST-capable MSC ships found in Section J, Attachment D. The activities and tasks included in the WBS should be sufficient to succinctly demonstrate the offeror’s ability to achieve FOC of the NGW system on the proposed date. For the purposes of proposal preparation, the offeror’s proposed FOC date shall occur between the FOC threshold date of 01 December 2010 and 31 December 2012, while mitigating risk. The offeror shall indicate if schedule risk quantifications are included in the WBS. FOC is defined as that point when 1) all BEST-capable MSC ships (as listed in Section J, Attachment D) and the MSOC vans have received the NGW system and 2) have the ability to employ and maintain it.

Appendix 5: Notional NGW System Installation Plan for an MSC Ship See Subfactor 3 – Transition Plan for instructions.

Appendix 6: NGW System Training Plan See Subfactor 2 – Operations and Maintenance for instructions.

Appendix 7: Operational Capabilities Demonstration Plan See Section 2 (2-0.) – Operational Capabilities Demonstration for instructions.

Appendix 8: Transition Plan See Subfactor 3 – Transition Plan for instructions.

Appendix 9: Offeror’s Coverage Map

See Subfactor 1 – System Performance for instructions.

Appendix 10: Technical Management Risk Matrix

See Section 4.2.1.1, Technical/Management Risk, and 4.2.2, Technical Solution/Management Risk for instructions.

5. Volume III ‑ Past Performance

5.1. General

Each offeror shall submit a past performance volume with its proposal, containing past performance information in accordance with the format contained in Paragraph 5.4 below.

The Summary Page describes the role of the offeror and each major subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner that is proposed to perform aspects of the effort you consider critical to overall successful performance.

The offeror will submit Past Performance Information Sheets (see Section J, Attachment N) on up to four contracts considered most relevant in demonstrating your ability to perform the proposed effort in accordance with Paragraph 5.3 below.

Offerors may identify up to four efforts for which they were the prime contractor, teaming partner, or a significant subcontractor. Experience as a prime or teaming partner may carry more weight than experience as a subcontractor. Past efforts in which the offeror was a teaming partner will not be evaluated unless the team arrangement met the definition in FAR 9.601(1): “Two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor.” Offerors submitting past performance efforts meeting this definition must be able to demonstrate how their performance on the effort directly contributed to the overall outcome. Experience as a teaming partner, as defined above and fully supported with information about the offeror’s contributions, will carry equal weight to experience as a prime contractor.

Along with the information required above, the offeror shall submit a Consent Letter (see Section J, Attachment M) executed by each major subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner identified in your proposal, authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the offeror so the offeror can respond to such information.

For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the offeror shall also submit a Client Authorization Letter (see Section J, Attachment L), authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the offeror’s performance.

Organizational Structure Change History is required in accordance with Paragraph 5.3.2 below.

5.2. Early Proposal Information

Not applicable.

5.3. Relevant Contracts

Submit information in accordance with Past Performance Information Sheets (see Section J, Attachment N) on up to four recent contracts that you consider most relevant in demonstrating your ability to perform the proposed effort. Include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance. Each relevant contract shall have been performed during the past 3 years from the date of issuance of the solicitation. Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort, and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate. To clearly link the past performance information to the technical/management subfactors, the offeror should identify which contracts are relevant indicators of performance against a technical/management subfactor. Categorize the relevance information into the specific evaluation subfactors used to evaluate the proposal:

Factor 1: Technical/Management

Subfactor 1: System Performance

Subfactor 2: Operations and Maintenance

Subfactor 3: Transition Plan

Subfactor 4: Management Approach Offerors are cautioned that the Government will use data provided by each offeror in this volume and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance. For a description of the characteristics or aspects the Government will consider in determining recency and relevance, see Section M002.c, Past Performance Factor.

5.3.1 Specific Content

Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate. This may include a discussion of efforts accomplished by the offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk. Merely having problems does not automatically equate to a limited or no confidence rating, since the problems encountered may have been on a more complex program, or an offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems encountered. The offeror is required to clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. This may allow the offeror to be considered a higher confidence candidate.

5.3.2 Organizational Structure Change History

Many companies have acquired, been acquired by, or otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the time of performance of relevant past efforts or between conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine what past performance is relevant to this procurement. To facilitate this relevancy determination, include in this proposal volume a “roadmap” describing all such changes in the organization of your company. A pamphlet or other commercial document describing such reorganizations may suffice. As part of this explanation, show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts you identify for past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment. Since the Government intends to consider past performance information provided by other sources as well as that provided by the offerors, your “roadmap” should be both specifically applicable to the efforts you identify and general enough to apply to efforts on which the Government receives information from other sources.

5.3.3 Questionnaires

The Government requests the offeror send out Past Performance Questionnaires (see Section J, Attachment J) to each of the Points of Contact (POCs) identified in each Past Performance Information Sheet. The POCs should submit completed questionnaires directly to the Government. Once the Past Performance Questionnaires are completed by the POCs, the information contained therein shall be considered sensitive and shall not be released to you, the offeror. A cover letter for transmitting the questionnaire to each POC is provided at Section J, Attachment K.

5.4. Volume Organization

The Past Performance volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

Table of Contents

Summary Page

Past Performance Information Sheets

Sub…