Amendment 02 NGAM RFP Section M Rev 2

HQ0147-10-R-0027

Amendment 02

Next Generation Aegis Missile (NGAM) Section M:

Evaluation Factors for Award for

HQ0147-10-R-0027

Revision 2

22 October 2010

Table of Contents

M-01. CLAUSES

M-01.1 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

M-02. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

M-02.1 COMPETITIVE, BEST VALUE SOURCE SELECTION

M-02.2 CONTRACT AWARD(S)

M-02.3 DISCUSSIONS

M-02.4 SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN AND ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF

INTEREST (OCI) PLAN

M-03. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

M-03.1 FACTORS/SUBFACTORS OVERVIEW

M-03.2 FACTOR RATING INFORMATION

M-04. EVALUATION

M-04.1 TECHNICAL FACTOR

M-04.1.1 Technical Subfactor 1 (TS1) – Systems Engineering M-04.1.2 Technical Subfactor 2 (TS2) – Technical Capabilities M-04.1.3 Technical Subfactor 3 (TS3) – Technology Risk Reduction M-04.1.4 Technical Subfactor 4 (TS4) – Program Planning Approach

M-04.2 PAST PERFORMANCE

M-04.2.1 Recency M-04.2.2 Relevancy M-04.2.3 Adverse Past Performance M-04.2.4 Quality Assessment M-04.2.5 Small Business Utilization Assessment M-04.2.6 Performance Confidence Assessment and Rating

M-04.3 MANAGEMENT FACTOR

M-04.4 COST/PRICE FACTOR

List of Tables

TABLE M-1. TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT COLOR RATING DEFINITIONS

TABLE M-2. RELEVANCY CRITERIA DEFINITIONS

TABLE M-3. QUALITY RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS

TABLE M-4. SMALL BUSINESS UTILIZATION PERFORMANCE RATINGS AND

DEFINITIONS

TABLE M-5. PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE RATING DEFINITIONS

M-01. CLAUSES

M-01.1 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

None.

M-02. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

M-02.1 Competitive, Best Value Source Selection This source selection is a best-value competitive source selection conducted in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, as supplemented by the Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) 215.3. The Government will select the best overall offer(s), based upon an integrated assessment of Technical, Past Performance, Management, and Cost/Price. To be eligible for award, the Offeror(s) must be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.1; meet all requirements of the solicitation; conform to all required terms and conditions; and include all required certifications. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror(s) who provides the best value in meeting and/or exceeding the requirements. Even though price is a substantial factor in source selection, this competition may result in award(s) to a higher-rated, higher-priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical superiority and/or overall business approach and/or superior past performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the cost/price difference. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum consistency and fairness, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

The Government may conduct a pre-award survey prior to contract award.

M-02.2 Contract Award(s) The Government contemplates the competitive award of up to three Cost-Plus Fixed-Fee (CPFF) contracts resulting from this solicitation, but reserves the right to make fewer than three awards, more than three awards, or no award at all. By submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements, and identified constraints. The Government will not accept or evaluate alternative proposals from any Offeror. The Government reserves the right to consider as acceptable only those proposals submitted in accordance with all instructions set forth or referenced in this solicitation. A proposal that omits material elements required of the solicitation may be omitted from further consideration. Failure to comply with the requirements of laws and regulations set forth or referenced in the solicitation may affect eligibility for award.

The Government may reject any or all offers if such action is determined to be in the Government’s best interest.

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in price, or such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of understanding/competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the Next Generation Aegis Missile (NGAM) requirement.

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the correction potential of any deficiency or problem. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If any aspect of an Offeror's proposal which fails to meet the Government's requirements is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range, if applicable, or may not be considered for award. The Government will use this information to support competitive range and contract award decisions, as applicable.

M-02.3 Discussions In accordance with FAR 52.215-1, the Government reserves the right to award without discussions. However, if, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the Government’s best interest, it may conduct written and/or oral discussions in accordance with FAR 15.306. The Government will consider Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) in making the source selection decision.

If final proposal revisions are requested, any revisions or non-concurrence with contract terms and conditions submitted in the final proposal revision may not be subject to further discussion or negotiation and may render the offer unacceptable to the Government. This provision is not intended to restrict the Offeror’s opportunity to revise figures, e.g., prices, discounts, or percentage rates. Rather, it is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government, which could result if new or revised terms and conditions are submitted in the final proposal revision that have not been fully disclosed, discussed, and understood during discussions or negotiations. Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the final proposal revision, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

M-02.4 Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Plan

The evaluation of the Small Business Subcontracting Plan and the OCI Plan are separate from the evaluation factors and subfactors listed in paragraph M-03 below.

M-02.4.1 The Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be evaluated to determine compliance with FAR 52.219-9 and the instructions in Section L, paragraph L-07.11. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan must be determined to be acceptable by the Contracting Officer in order for the Offeror to be eligible for award.

M-02.4.2 The OCI Plan will be evaluated to determine compliance with FAR 9.5, DFARS 209.5, the OCI Clause included in Clause H-09 of the solicitation and the instructions in Section L, paragraph L-07.10. An Offeror’s failure to provide adequate information to avoid or mitigate an OCI may cause its proposal to be rejected by the Contracting Officer.

M-03. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

M-03.1 Factors/Subfactors Overview In evaluating proposals, the Government will make tradeoffs among the factors and subfactors, and select the proposal that is most advantageous to the Government. The Cost/Price proposal is not a ranked evaluation factor and will not be given a specific rating, but will be closely evaluated and considered in performing an integrated assessment of the proposals and factored into the selection of the best value decision. The non-cost/price factors are in descending priority order. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e)(1), when combined, non-cost/price factors are significantly more important than cost/price factor.

Factor 1 (F1): Technical Subfactor 1: Systems Engineering Subfactor 2: Technical Capabilities Subfactor 3: Technology Risk Reduction Subfactor 4: Program Planning Approach

Factor 2 (F2): Past Performance Factor 3 (F3): Management

Risk will be a part of the Government’s evaluation of all factors and subfactors. The Government will evaluate the cost, technical, and schedule risks associated with each Offeror’s proposal as applicable under the factors and sub-factors below and consider risk when assigning a color rating.

The Government will assign a color rating to each Technical subfactor and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the subfactor’s strengths and significant strengths as defined below, and weaknesses and deficiencies as defined in FAR 15.001.

Strength is defined as a significant, outstanding, or exceptional aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit and exceeds specified performance, capability requirements, or objectives. A significant strength in the proposal is an aspect that will appreciably increase the likelihood of successful contract performance.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Past Performance and assign a performance confidence rating. The performance confidence rating will include the evaluation of the Past Performance submittals for relevancy, recency, quality of work performed, and small business utilization

The Government will assign one overall color rating at the factor level to the Management Factor, and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the factor’s strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies.

M-03.2 Factor Rating Information For Factor F1 – Technical - the Government will use five (5) color codes to assign a color rating to each evaluation subfactor that results from applying the evaluation criteria to each Offeror’s proposal which will roll up to a single factor color rating. For Factor F3 – Management, the evaluators will use five (5) color codes to assign a color rating to the factor. The following definitions for color ratings will apply:

Table M-1. Technical and Management Color Rating Definitions

Color Adjective Definition

BLUE Exceptional Greatly exceeds specified minimum performance, capability requirements, or objectives in a way beneficial to the government.

PURPLE Excellent Exceeds specified minimum performance, capability requirements, or objectives in a way beneficial to the government.

GREEN Acceptable Meets specified minimum performance, capability requirements, or objectives.

YELLOW Marginal Does not clearly meet some specified minimum performance, capability requirements, or objectives necessary for acceptable contract performance, but the problem is correctable.

RED Unacceptable Fails to meet specified minimum performance, capability requirements, or objectives.

M-04. EVALUATION

M-04.1 Technical Factor The technical evaluation will focus on the Offeror’s technical competence and proposed technical approach to assess the contractor’s ability to provide credible and sound products necessary to accomplish the Statement of Objectives (SOO). Each subfactor within the Technical factor will receive one of the color ratings described in Table M-1. Technical subfactor color ratings will be rolled up into an overall Technical factor color rating. Technical subfactors TS1 and TS2 are of equal importance. TS1 and TS2 are each slightly more important than either TS3 or TS4. TS3 and TS4 are of equal importance.

M-04.1.1 Technical Subfactor 1 (TS1) – Systems Engineering The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposed systems engineering approach can develop a fully defined and thoroughly characterized NGAM concept that meets NGAM objectives, system context and constraints. The Offeror’s proposed systems engineering approach will be evaluated to determine the extent to which a credible approach has been provided. This includes:

1) Performance Work Statement (PWS) that defines a detailed description of all efforts associated with the Statement of Objectives (SOO) and the contractor’s technical approach for the concept definition and planning effort;

2) A structured and systematic systems engineering process that thoroughly captures system and subsystem level trades and performance analysis, and includes system performance technology development and integration risk, schedule, and average unit production and life-cycle cost as key trade parameters, a concept of operations for the tactical employment of the NGAM for land-based and sea-based operations and performance margin management;

a) Trade studies that span the full range of potential concepts for the missile architectures including, but not limited to, system and missile attributes defined in the SOO while ensuring that functional and physical allocations are compatible with the Aegis Weapon System (including Aegis BMD 5.1 and MK 41 Vertical Launching System (VLS)), shipboard qualification requirements, insensitive munitions policy, and Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) architecture constraints defined by the Government; trade studies that fully consider missile concepts that take advantage of MK 41 VLS modification trade space;

trade studies that fully explore traditional and innovative propulsion system concepts using solid propellants; trade studies and rationale for alternative propulsion concepts; trade studies that fully explore alternative kill vehicle (KV) concepts; trade studies that consider producibility, manufacturing tolerances, reliability, availability, maintainability, mission assurance and safety; trade study methodology utilizing selection criteria appropriate for assessing the attributes and objectives in the SOO;

b) Failure Modes Effects Criticality Analysis (FMECA) that identifies

Reliability Critical Items (RCI).

3) Thorough technology and manufacturing readiness maturity and risk assessment of concepts that are accomplished with structured processes, include complete rationale for ratings, and provide technology maturation plans, risk mitigation plans and thorough assessment of risk reduction performance improvements from MDA technology investments.

4) Proposed analytical approach results in:

a. Missile concepts grounded in detailed analysis that provide high confidence in estimates of missile mass allocations, missile kinematics;

guidance, navigation, and control error characteristics; divert capabilities;

seeker acquisition range and discrimination capabilities, and communication capabilities within the environments and off board sensor support and system timelines provided by the Government; Performance modeling and simulation tools are developed in a Simulink model based simulation and software development environment and are compliant with the OASIS Simitar simulation framework requirements integratable into the MDA Digital Simulation Architecture (DSA) and Single Stimulation Framework (SSF); models and simulations which anchor performance assessments in high fidelity tools and test data;

b. System Performance assessments that demonstrate the full functionality of the interceptor from launch through intercept, and apply the appropriate modeling techniques and analytical tools for quantifying the key performance parameters; performance assessment tools fully capture NGAM and BMDS interactions including concept of operations for tactical employment, track quality, in-flight communications, system discrimination states, target correlation, countermeasure effects, debris effects, and kill assessment.

M-04.1.2 Technical Subfactor 2 (TS2) – Technical Capabilities The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal states clearly and provides credible evidence that the Offeror’s team has the capability and capacity to execute product development and integration. The experience and capabilities described in items 1) through 7) below are each critical to successful completion of the effort under this contract.

Offerors shall note that items 1) through 7) below are minimum capability requirements, all of which an Offeror must clearly establish in the proposal or the entire offer will be deemed as unacceptable. The Government will not award to any Offeror whose proposal is evaluated as "unacceptable" due to failure to clearly establish any one or more of items 1) through 7), and if the Government decides to conduct discussions the Government may decide not to include in the competitive range any initial proposal evaluated as unacceptable.

1) Extensive, direct experience designing, developing, and manufacturing state-of-the-art ballistic missile defense interceptors, including technology assessment and insertion and highly producible (maximum tolerance) missile designs for production efficiency;

2) Proven capability in the planning and execution of interceptor development, production, and life-cycle support as demonstrated on prior missile programs;

3) Proven interceptor production capability, infrastructure, staff and processes to deliver missile systems similar to the NGAM class on a qualified production line where similar is defined as greater than 1000 lbs of total propellant, multiple stages including payload and an electro-optical sensor;

4) Extensive expertise and experience in land and/or sea-based interceptor system integration to include: requirements definition and design of electrical and mechanical interfaces to the launcher system and canister; naval systems intergration; interceptor egress dynamics; in-flight communications requirements definition and design; telemetry systems; weapon system data interfaces for built-in-test, navigation system alignment, seeker alignment to targeting system reference, fly-out guidance, definition of uplink and downlink data requirements for guidance object selection/target scene;

5) Direct experience planning and executing comprehensive flight qualification, production qualification, Hardware-in-the-Loop (HWIL), ground and flight test programs for interceptor components and systems for design verification and safety;

6) Proven expertise for land and/or sea-based ballistic missile defense interceptor systems engineering, modeling and simulation for ballistic missile defense interceptor performance assessment, high fidelity six degree-of-freedom simulation, simulation accreditation, algorithm development, risk assessment and mitigation planning, hardware-in-the-loop facility development, and configuration management on missile development and production programs, and demonstrated knowledge and application of Simulink for model based simulation and software development;

7) Demonstrated contractor, subcontractors, and key supplier's quality, safety, and mission assurance processes, function, and adherence to the intent of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Assurance Provisions (MAP), Parts, Materials, and Processes Mission Assurance Plan (PMAP), and US Navy instructions and standards (noted in the GFI list).

M-04.1.3 Technical Subfactor 3 (TS3) – Technology Risk Reduction The Government will evaluate the applicability of the component technology proposed to the NGAM performance goals; government technology investments considered in selecting technology for risk reduction; maturity increase achieved by proposed component technology development and test (objective of TRL 6 or higher by 2013); appropriateness of test approach to test objectives; and risk to successful completion of proposed tests; test article fabrication, test planning, and test execution complies with the MDA MAP, PMAP, and US Navy instructions and standards (noted in the GFI list) in accordance with the Requirements Applicability Matrix

(RAM).

M-04.1.4 Technical Subfactor 4 (TS4) – Program Planning Approach The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach to generating a complete and realistic follow-on development, production, logistics, and deployment program description, including tasks, knowledge points, schedules, and cost estimates. The Government’s evaluation will consider how well the Offeror’s program planning approach:

1) Defines all development tasks and milestones including comprehensive model and simulation development and verification and validation, concept of operations, ground and flight tests necessary for development and land- and sea-based deployment, mission assurance and safety compliance with the MDA MAP, MDA PMAP and US Navy instructions and standards (noted in the GFI list);

defines tasks associated with production and life-cycle support;

2) Defines a schedule that captures all tasks and task interrelationships, and identifies the critical path, schedule risks, and external dependencies and includes all ground qualification, hardware-in-the-loop, and flight test activities for comprehensive model validation, design verification, safety compliance, and flight qualification;

3) Provides development, average unit production and life cycle cost estimates with sufficient rigor for Government assessment; cost estimates are developed in accordance with assumptions in the Operational Guidelines Document.

M-04.2 Past Performance The Government will conduct a past performance assessment of the Offeror and its key subcontractors. Key subcontractors and/or subsidiaries are those which perform 10 percent or more of the proposed cost of this effort and/or whose performance on the awarded contract is such that if it fails, could significantly impact program success. Past performance regarding predecessor companies or key subcontractors, and/or subsidiaries that will perform critical aspects of the requirement will be considered the same as past performance information of the principal Offeror.

The purpose of this assessment is to determine the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s probability of successfully performing the required effort based on demonstrated records of performance for the Offeror and the Offeror’s proposed key subcontractors. Past performance is an integrated assessment of recency, relevancy, quality and small business utilization, and results in an overall Performance Confidence Rating as defined in Table M-5. The Performance Risk Assessment Group (PRAG) will evaluate all contracts submitted by Offerors in their Past Performance volume for recency, using the criteria in paragraph 4.3.1, and relevancy, using the Relevancy Criteria tables described in Table M-2.

In conducting this assessment, the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the Offeror as well as data obtained from other sources such as Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting Systems (CPARS), similar systems of other Government departments and agencies, questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels, interviews with program managers and contracting officers, and other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources.

M-04.2.1 Recency The Government will only consider recent work, which is defined as work performed during the five-year period preceding the date of Request for Proposal (RFP) release. Note: If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance.

M-04.2.2 Relevancy If the past performance information is recent, as defined in M-04.2.1, the relevancy assessment will be conducted on past Offeror or key subcontractor contracts. This area demonstrates the depth and breadth of relevant experience of the Offeror, including key subcontractors and/or subsidiaries. Relevancy for the Offeror’s past contracts will be assigned in accordance with the definition outlined in Table M-2. The PRAG will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine how closely the work performed under those efforts relates to the proposed effort. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, as well as key subcontractors and/or subsidiaries. Higher relevancy will be assessed for contracts that are most similar to the effort, or portion of the effort, for which that contractor is being proposed.

Table M-2. Relevancy Criteria Definitions

Relevancy Criteria Definition Very Relevant Past performance involved essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires (e.g., scope, complexities and deliverables).

Relevant Past performance involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires (e.g., scope, complexities and deliverables)

Somewhat Relevant Past performance involved some of the same magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires (e.g., scope, complexities and deliverables)

Not Relevant Past performance effort did not involve any of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires (e.g., scope, complexities and deliverables)

M-04.2.3 Adverse Past Performance Adverse past performance information is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation aspect or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. When a relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems as well as the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness. In accordance with FAR 15.306(b)(1)(i), communications must be held with any Offeror whose adverse past performance information is the determining factor preventing it from being included in the competitive range, unless the Offeror has previously had the opportunity to comment on such information.

M-04.2.4 Quality Assessment The Quality Assessment will be accomplished by reviewing the aspects of the Offeror’s product/service performance, cost control and maintaining schedule on previous recent and relevant contracts. The Quality Rating will be assigned in accordance with the definitions outlined in Table M-3.

Table M-3. Quality Ratings and Definitions

Rating Definition Exceptional Performance met all contract requirements and exceeded many to the

Government’s benefit. Problems, if any, were negligible and were resolved in a timely, highly effective manner.

Very Good Performance met all contract requirements and exceeded some to the Government’s benefit. There were a few minor problems that the contractor resolved in a timely, effective manner.

Satisfactory Performance met contract requirements. There were some minor problems and corrective actions taken by the contractor were sufficient.

Marginal Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. There were problems, some of a serious nature, for which corrective action was only marginally effective.

Unsatisfactory Performance did not meet most contractual requirements. There were serious problems and the contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective.

N/A Neutral or Unknown or Not required in the Contract

M-04.2.5 Small Business Utilization Assessment Pursuant to DFARS 215.305 for large businesses, the assessment will consider the extent to which the Offeror’s evaluated past performance complied with small business subcontracting goals in contracts which included FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and/or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The Offeror’s record will be evaluated to assess whether it exceeded, met, or did not meet subcontracting goals established in prior subcontracting plans. The Offeror’s small business utilization past performance will be rated as defined in Table M-4.

Table M-4. Small Business Utilization Performance Ratings and Definitions

Exceeded From a percentage perspective, Offeror exceeded their established overall small business subcontracting goal and all but one subcategory goal.

Met From a percentage perspective, Offeror met their established overall small business subcontracting goal and all but two subcategory goals.

Did Not Meet From a percentage perspective, Offeror failed to meet their established overall small business subcontracting goal or more than two subcategory goals.

Unknown Unable to determine if the Offeror was required to formally support small business utilization efforts or was unable to obtain appropriate information to provide a qualitative rating.

Not Applicable Offeror’s contract does not meet threshold required by FAR 52.219-9 or is commercial contracts.

M-04.2.6 Performance Confidence Assessment and Rating Based on an integrated assessment of recency, relevancy, quality, and as appropriate, small business utilization of the Offeror’s past performance, the PRAG will then determine and assign an overall Performance Confidence Rating for the Past Performance Factor in accordance with Table M-5.

Table M-5. Performance Confidence Rating Definitions

Exceptional/High Confidence

Based on the Offeror's performance record, essentially no doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Very Good/Significant Confidence

Based on the Offeror's performance record, little doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory/Confidence Based on the Offeror's performance record, there is some doubt due to the Offeror’s past performance record, but an adequate level of confidence exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Marginal/Little Confidence

Based on the Offeror's past performance record, substantial doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unsatisfactory/No Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, extreme doubt exists that the offer will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral/Unknown Confidence

No performance record identifiable [see FAR 15.305].

This rating will represent an overall assessment of Offeror’s past performance. Offerors without a record of recent and relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral/Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance Factor. A more recent and relevant record of favorable performance may result in a higher Performance Confidence Rating than a less recent and/or relevant record of favorable performance. A record of exceptional, very good, or satisfactory confidence rating will be considered more advantageous to the Government than a record of “Neutral/Unknown Confidence”.

M-04.3 Management Factor The Management Factor will receive one overall color rating at the factor level. The Government will evaluate the Management Approach for thoroughness of the Offeror’s demonstration of relevant policies, methodologies, processes, range and depth of personnel, capacity, financial stability, and resources to manage, track and execute a management plan that includes:

1) Management Plan and Processes: The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s Management Plan and Processes is complete and identifies the key management processes and describes their development, use and implementation to ensure successful contract execution and effective use of managed resources. The evaluation will assess at a minimum Program Management and Organization; Program Controls and Operations; Government Controls; Teaming; Key Personnel and Staffing Management; Risk Management;

System Configuration and Changes; Quality, Safety and Mission Assurance Management; Security/Information Assurance Management; Planning and Execution Activity; and Earned Value Management;

2) Integrated Master Plan (IMP) and Integrated Master Schedule (IMS): The

Government will evaluate the extent to which the IMP/IMS is complete, reflects an understanding and encompasses the work content described in the SOO and the Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS). The evaluation will assess how well the IMP/IMS documents the interrelationship of the technical tasks, risk mitigation, and critical path, as well as the planned events and milestones, accomplishments, exit criteria, and activities from contract award to the completion of the contract;

3) CWBS: The Government will evaluate the extent to which the CWBS is complete, reflects an understanding and encompasses the work content described in the SOO and tracks to the SOO and the IMP/IMS. The evaluation will also assess the level of detail provided to ensure proper tracking of Cost, Schedule, and Performance;

4) Small Business: The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s plans and examples for leveraging investments in small business technology development efforts and their commitment to use small businesses in terms of the type of work to be performed, the extent to which specific companies are named in the proposal and whether binding agreements are in place. Offers will also be evaluated to assess the number and expected benefits of proposed initiatives to enhance small business participation and capabilities both in the instant acquisition and to meet future requirements to be supported by the BMDS small business industrial base.

M-04.4 Cost/Price Factor The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s cost/price proposal to determine the overall evaluated probable cost/price to the Government of successfully completing the contract using the Offeror’s unique approach. The burden of proof for cost/price reasonableness and realism rests with the Offeror.

Cost will be evaluated using the Offeror's overall cost proposal, the Government's independent estimate, and various cost and/or price analysis techniques, IAW FAR Part 15.404. Cost will be assessed as follows:

1) Cost Reasonableness. The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to assess the reasonableness of the individual elements used to make up the direct labor rates by labor category, material, Other Direct Cost (ODC), labor hours, and associated burdens and factors;

2) Cost Realism. The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to assess the likelihood the technical and management approaches proposed can be accomplished at the cost proposed. Cost realism analysis takes into consideration the Offeror’s unique business methods, operating procedures, and practices. The Offeror is advised to clearly show justification for any unique practices that are claimed to significantly lower costs. Apparent lack of cost realism, if any, will be a subject for discussion with Offerors determined to be within the competitive range. The results of the cost realism analysis may also be considered in the evaluation of the Technical and Management factors to assess the Offeror’s understanding of the magnitude and complexity of the contract requirements. An unrealistic cost may be reflected in lower evaluation ratings in the Technical and Management factors to the extent it is judged to be an indicator of the Offeror’s lack of understanding relative to these factors;

3) Probable Cost: The Probable Cost will be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the best value. The Government’s evaluated probable cost will consist of the following elements: 1) proposed cost and fee for all CLINs, 2) adjustments to reflect any additions or reductions in labor hours, direct and indirect rates, or other costs, when appropriate, to realistic levels based on the results of cost realism analysis, 3) Government specific assessed values associated with Government Furnished Property (GFP), and 4) any additional costs to the Government which are necessary to support the Offeror’s unique approach. The Probable Cost may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost that is most likely to result from the Offeror’s proposal.

Offerors are reminded that the electronic versions of excel spreadsheets shall contain all formulas and links between spreadsheets. The Government will analyze the excel spreadsheets (electronic version of Offeror’s estimating model) to determine how the prices were derived. If a particular row or column within a spreadsheet or a particular spreadsheet within a workbook contains hard coded entries (i.e., lacks formulas or links to another spreadsheet), the Offeror shall clearly explain the rationale for the inclusion of such hard coded entries and cross reference hard coded entries to source and other spreadsheets. If an Offeror fails to provide an electronic version of the proposal that contains all of the formulas and links between the spreadsheets and tables presented in its proposal, or provides excel spreadsheets that contains hard coded entries without any rationale for or explanation of the hard coded entries and cross references to source and other spreadsheets, the Government will determine the Offeror's proposal to be non-compliant with the RFP instructions and recommend to the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) that the Offeror's proposal be eliminated from further consideration in the evaluation.