NGAM DRFP - Section M 10 07 26.1.pdf

DRFP HQ0147-10-R-0027

NGAM_Section M_Draft July 26, 2010

Next Generation Aegis Missile (NGAM) Section M:

Evaluation Factors for Award for

HQ0147-10-R-0027

26 July 2010

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 and MDA guidance. The Government will select the best overall offer(s), based upon an integrated assessment of Technical, Management, Past Performance, 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 intends to award up to three Cost Plus Fixed Fee contracts. 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 reserves the right to award more than three contracts or no award if deemed appropriate. 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 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. 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-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: Program Planning Approach

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

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 Source Selection Authority (SSA) will select the Offeror (s) whose proposal is/are considered the best value to the Government, consistent with the factors and subfactors listed below.

The Government will assign a color rating to each Technical and Management subfactor and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the subfactor’s strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Past Performance, including small business utilization, 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.

M-03.2 Factor Rating Information For Factors F1 – Technical and F2 – Management, the evaluators 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. 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 and each is slightly more important than TS3.

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 Next Generation Aegis Missile concept that meets Next Generation Aegis Missile requirements, objectives, considerations, 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 Next Generation Aegis Missile concept definition and planning effort;

(2) A structured and systematic systems engineering process that thoroughly captures system and subsystem level trades and performance drivers, and includes cost and risk as a key trade parameters.

(3) Trade studies which address a full range of potential concepts for the missile architectures and fuel types including all solid solutions, all liquid (upper stage and KW) solutions, and hybrid liquid-solid solutions, while ensuring that functional and physical allocations which are compatible with Aegis BMD 5.1 Weapon System, Mk 41 VLS and BMDS architecture; trade study methodology fully considers the necessary selection criteria including performance (Launch Area Denied, Defended Area, Probability of Engagement Success), schedule, risk, mission assurance, HEMP/HAENS compliance, safety, reliability, logistics impact, testability, and manufacturability; production and life cycle cost, and Average Unit Production Cost;

(4) Thorough technology maturity and risk assessment of concepts which are accomplished with structured processes, include complete rationale for ratings, and provide technology maturation plans and risk mitigation plans;

(5) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposed approach can result in feasible concepts and demonstrate full interceptor functionality that meets Next Generation Aegis Missile requirements, objectives, considerations, and constraints. The Offeror’s proposed analytical approach will be evaluated to determine the extent to which a credible approach has been provided. This includes:

a. Trade studies which result in feasible concepts grounded in detailed analysis of concepts, and which provide high confidence in estimates of burn out velocity, acquisition range, divert, discrimination capability, and environments based on parametric offboard sensor support and system timelines;

b. Performance modeling and simulation approaches which anchor performance assessment in high fidelity tools, experiments, and data sets; and analysis tools which are developed within a model based software environment that is compliant with the Agency’s Digital Simulation Architecture and Single Stimulation Framework; and

c. Performance assessments which 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 Next Generation Aegis Missile and BMDS interactions including track quality, in-flight communications, system discrimination states, target correlation, countermeasure impacts, 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 of the Offeror’s capability and capacity to execute product development and integration, including:

(1) Extensive, direct experience designing and manufacturing ballistic missile defense interceptors and kinetic warheads, including technology assessment and insertion;

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

(3) Demonstrated missile production capability, infrastructure and capacity for a Next

Generation Aegis Missile, or larger, class missile including facilities, staff, and processes; demonstrated experience qualifying production facilities and processes for DoD missile programs;

(4) Proven delivery of missile systems for a production rate of at least four missiles per month;

(5) Extensive expertise and experience in weapon system - interceptor integration to include: requirements definition and design of electrical and mechanical interfaces to the launcher system and canister; interceptor egress dynamics for land and sea-based systems; 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/hit assessment/kill assessment.

(6) Direct experience planning and executing comprehensive ground and flight test programs for interceptor components and systems for design verification, safety, and component qualification;

(7) Proven expertise for systems engineering, weapon system modeling and simulation for 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;

(8) Demonstrated contractor 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).

M-04.1.3 Technical Subfactor 3 (TS3) – Program Planning Approach The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach to generating a complete and realistic follow-on development, production, 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 ground and flight tests necessary for development and deployment; 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, hardware-in-the-loop, and flight test activities for comprehensive model validation, design verification, safety compliance, and flight qualification;

(3) Provides development, production and life cycle cost estimates with sufficient rigor for Government assessment;

(4) Provides a Performance Work Statement (PWS) that defines a detailed description of all efforts for the Product Development Phase;

(5) Provides an Integrated Master Plan (IMP) and event-based Integrated Master

Schedule (IMS) with clearly defined knowledge points that captures all tasks, task sequencing, task interrelationships, risk mitigation activities, and critical path(s).

M-04.2 Management Factor The Management Approach will be evaluated 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 (to include but not limited to Program Management;

Teaming and Subcontractor Management; Key Personnel and Staffing Management; Risk Management; Configuration/Change Management; Quality Assurance Management;

Security/Information Assurance Management, Safety Plan, Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and Planning and Execution Activities.

(2) Subcontract Management

(3) 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 utilization and capabilities both in the instant acquisition and to meet future requirements to be supported by the BMDS small business industrial base

M-04.3 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. 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 M4. 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 below, and relevancy, using the Relevancy Criteria tables described in Table M3. The PRAG will evaluate recent and relevant past performance history and each Offeror will receive a single Performance Confidence Rating for the Past Performance Factor using the ratings described in Table M4.

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, similar systems of other Government departments and agencies, questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition, Defense Contract Management

Agency channels, interviews with program managers and contracting officers, and other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources.

M-04.3.1 Recency The Government will only consider recent work, which is defined as work performed during the five-year period preceding the date of 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-04.3.2 Relevancy If the past performance information is recent, as defined in M-04.3.1 above, 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 M3 below. 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 M3. 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-04.3.3 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 M4. The Past Performance evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing the Offeror’s past performance, with particular focus on the Offeror’s history of providing its customers with a quality product/service on contracts of similar magnitude, complexity and scope as well as performance relative to budget and schedule.

Table M4. Performance Confidence Rating Definitions

Rating Definition 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 or very good confidence rating will be considered more advantageous to the Government than a record of “Neutral/Unknown Confidence”.

M-04.3.4 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-04.4 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 shall be evaluated, but shall not be scored nor otherwise combined with other aspects of the proposal evaluation. 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:

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.

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.

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 PCO that the Offeror's proposal be eliminated from further consideration in the evaluation.

NOTE: There is no color or adjective rating system for this factor.

M-04.4 Cost/Price Factor