Attachment 4 Section M.docx

Section M – 29 June 2011 – Rev 9

Clear/Cod Radar Section M:

Evaluation Factors for Award for

HQ0147-11-R-0002

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table Index

The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated against the criteria specified in M-04 and the following conditions:

· Each Offeror’s adherence to terms and conditions set forth in Part I, the Schedule, and Part II, Contract Clauses of this solicitation.

· Each Offeror’s avoidance or mitigation of Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI)

M-03 BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government contemplates award of a hybrid contract, utilizing several contract types and fee structures, resulting from this solicitation. This 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. To be eligible for award, the Offeror must be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.1; meet the requirements of the solicitation; conform to the required terms and conditions; and, include all required certifications. Alternate proposals are not allowed. Proposals with contingent terms and conditions may be deemed non-responsive and could result in the rejection of an Offeror’s proposal.

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in cost/price when compared to the Government cost realism analysis, or such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of understanding/competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of all stated requirements. 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 not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range, if applicable. The Government will use this information to support competitive range and contract award decisions, as applicable.

At the Government's discretion, a competitive range determination may be utilized IAW FAR 15.306. Offerors are hereby notified that IAW FAR 15.306(c)(2), the PCO may limit, with SSA approval, the number of the most highly rated proposals to a number at which an efficient competition can be conducted. The PCO will notify any Offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range IAW FAR 15.503, whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

M-03.1 Competitive, Best-Value Source Selection The Government will select for award the most advantageous proposal representing the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of Technical, Management, Past Performance, and Cost/Price factors. The Technical and Management Factors are equal, and each individually is significantly more important than Past Performance. When the three factors are combined, they are significantly more important than the Cost/Price factor. Even though price is a substantial factor in source selection, this competition may result in an award 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 price Offeror outweighs the cost/price difference. While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

M-03.2 Factor Rating Information 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. 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-04 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

M-04.1 Factors/Subfactors and Their Relative Order of Importance The SSA will select the Offeror whose proposal is considered the best value to the Government consistent with the factors and subfactors listed below.

Subfactor TS1: Signal Processor and Data Processor

Subfactor TS2: Radar Software

Subfactor TS3: Information Assurance

Subfactor TS4: Hardware Obsolescence Redesign

Subfactor MS1: Systems Engineering

Subfactor MS2: Program Management

Subfactor MS3: Integrated Master Schedule

Subfactor MS4: Sub-Contractor and Associated Contractor Management

Subfactor MS5: Small Business Participation & Commitment

Factor 3 (F3): Past Performance

Less important than F1 or F2 individually

Table M-04.1 Evaluation Factors/Subfactors

Each Technical and Management subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in Table M-04.2 and one of the risk ratings described in Table M-04.3. The Technical and Management subfactor ratings focus on the strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks. 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 and recency of Technical/Management/Cost/Price factors/subfactors, quality of work performed, and small business utilization.

M-04.2 Factor Rating Information Each Technical and Management subfactor will receive one of the ratings described in Table M-04.2.

Table M-04.2 Technical and Management Ratings

M-04.3 Risk Rating Each of the technical and management subfactors will receive one of the Risk ratings defined in Table M-03.3 (Risk Ratings) below.The Government will evaluate risks associated with each technical and management subfactor except the Small Business Participation and Commitment Management subfactor. The Government will assess the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, and the need for increased Government oversight, as well as the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Table M-04.3 Risk Ratings

M-04.4 Evaluation Definitions Each proposal will be evaluated against the solicitation and its stated evaluation factors and subfactors for award. The Government’s Technical and Management evaluation will focus on compliance with solicitation requirements and the proposal’s strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and other factors identified in the solicitation.

Table M-04.4 Proposal Evaluation Definitions

M-05 EVALUATION

M-05.1 Technical Factor (Factor 1) The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the overall technical capability and approach of each Offeror. The evaluation will focus on compliance with solicitation requirements. Each color-coded subfactor within the Technical factor will receive one of the color ratings described in Table M-04.2. The Government will assess proposal risk associated at the subfactor level focused on weaknesses associated with the Offeror’s proposed technical approach. Each subfactor within the Technical factor will receive one of the proposal risk ratings described in Table M-04-3.

M-05.1.1 Technical Subfactor 1 (TS1): Signal Processor and Data Processor (SPDP) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach for accomplishing SOW section 3.3.2.2. The Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s approach for providing the required scalability in their design, and their ability to accelerate the design and implementation schedule.

M-05.1.2 Technical Subfactor 2 (TS2): Radar Software The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach for accomplishing SOW section 3.3.1 and all sub sections as well as section 5.3. The Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s ability to demonstrate a robust software Integrated Development Environment process along with a robust software quality process that will minimize software defects, development and implementation time.

M-05.1.3 Technical Subfactor 3 (TS3): Information Assurance (IA) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed technical approach for accomplishing IA requirements as an inherent part of addressing SOW section 3.3 “Radar Hardware and Software Development”. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Information Assurance approach as follows:

· Offeror’s approach demonstrates a clear understanding of the challenges of Information Assurance and provides a balanced approach (i.e., protection, performance, cost and functionality) for implementing security engineering in a distributed service oriented architecture environment.

· Offeror’s approach demonstrates a clear understanding of the DoD Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process (DIACAP), 8510.01 for a MAC I Classified system. Offeror provides streamlined and efficient security processes in their approach.

· The Government will also evaluate the proposal for evidence of sufficient IA expertise to apply to this effort to achieve DIACAP certification.

M-05.1.4 Technical Subfactor 4 (TS4): Hardware Obsolescence Redesign The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach for accomplishing SOW section 3.3.2. The Offeror’s approach shall be evaluated to determine: 1) How well it reflects the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements for hardware and obsolescence redesign; 2) How will it reduces the impact and frequency of performing COTS obsolescence upgrades and; 3) The ability of hardware solutions to be form/fit/function replacements allowing for retrofit of their design into the Beale/Fylingdales/Thule UEWRs without the need for significant re-engineering or sustaining engineering costs.

M-05.1.5 Technical Subfactor 5 (TS5): UEWR Growth and Scalability The Government will evaluate the Offeror's technical approach for accomplishing SOW section 3.3. The Offeror's approach will be evaluated to determine 1) consistency of the design with previous UEWR designs, but 2) allows the design to be scalable and growable to accommodate future mission requirements.

M-05.2 Management Factor (Factor 2) The Government management evaluation team will evaluate the overall management capability of each Offeror. The evaluation will focus on compliance with solicitation requirements. Each color-coded subfactor within the Management factor will receive one of the color ratings described in Table M-04.2. The Government will assess proposal risk associated at the subfactor level focused on weaknesses associated with the Offeror’s proposed management approach. Each subfactor within the Management factor will receive one of the proposal risk ratings described in Table M-04-3.

M-05.2.1 Management Subfactor 1 (MS1): Systems Engineering The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach for accomplishing the SOW section 3.2 requirements for Systems Engineering. Further, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach for soundness and executability to assure a robust systems engineering approach is in place for all aspects to include at a minimum Configuration Management (CM), Data Management (DM), Risk (and opportunity) Management and evidence of current CMMI assessments, and how these processes will be applied to this program. The Government will evaluate the ability of this Systems Engineering approach to improve technical solutions, avoid significant delays and avoid cost increases. The Government will evaluate how these processes integrate with subcontractor processes as appropriate.

M-05.2.2 Management Subfactor 2 (MS2): Program Management The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach for accomplishing the SOW section 3.1 requirements for Program Management. Further, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for demonstrated technical and management staff, expertise and number of personnel throughout the duration of this contract, to ensure successful completion of this effort.

M-05.2.3 Management Subfactor 3 (MS3): Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach and understanding for accomplishing the entire effort as demonstrated in the proposed IMS. The Government will evaluate the extent to which Offeror’s IMS demonstrates a thorough understanding of the requirements to deliver the Clear upgrade within cost and schedule, the extent to which the Offeror’s IMS demonstrates a sound and executable plan for the completion of this effort and how the Offeror’s proposed IMS demonstrates benefit to the Government.

M-05.2.4 Management Subfactor 4 (MS4): Sub-Contractor and Associated Contractor Management The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach for accomplishing the SOW Sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.6 with respect to any required and proposed sub-contract management. The Government will evaluate how the Offeror’s proposed sub-contractor management demonstrates benefit to the government. In addition the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach at resolving potential schedule conflicts associated with multiple independent contractors engaged in work at Clear to include associated contractor coordination/deconfliction in order to avoid program delays and cost overruns.

M-05.2.5 Management Subfactor 5 (MS5): Small Business Participation & Commitment The Government will evaluate small business participation and commitment as measured against the total contract value. Evaluation ratings for participation dollars will be based on the degree to which the proposed values attain the UEWR minimum targets listed in Section L-08.5. As part of this evaluation, the Government will consider each Offeror's 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 documented commitments are demonstrated in their proposal. Offers will also be evaluated to assess the number and expected benefits of proposed new, contract-specific small business initiatives and the extent to which Offeror’s have in place effective procedures to ensure proper flow-down of requirements, process management, and performance assessments of small business utilization at lower tiers.

M-05.3 Past Performance Factor (Factor 3) The Government will conduct a past performance assessment of the Offeror, key subcontractors, major subcontractors, and /or subsidiaries. Key subcontractors, teaming partners, or joint venture partners are those whose failure of performance could cause failure of the total project. Major subcontractors, teaming partners, or joint venture partners are those whose proposed effort to perform exceeds 20 percent of the total effort based on the total proposed cost. 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 Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an Offeror’s ability to perform, including Cost/Price and schedule, based on a demonstrated record of relevant quality performance.

M-05.3.1 Performance Confidence Assessment Performance confidence will be rated at the overall Past Performance factor level. Past performance will be assessed for recency, relevancy, quality of worked performed, and small business utilization, if applicable. The Government may consider past performance information from individual contract references and in the aggregate. In evaluating Past Performance, the Government reserves the right to use both information provided by the Offeror, as well as information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), other databases interviews with program managers, contracting officers and Fee Determining Officials; and Defense Contract Management Agency. Past performance information may be obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition. Assessment may include Government site visit(s) and surveys of sources to validate performance information.

The Past Performance evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing the aspects of the Offeror’s past performance focusing on the Offeror’s history of providing its customers with a quality product/service on contracts of similar complexity and scope that was delivered within budget and on schedule. 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 may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a record of “Neutral/Unknown Confidence”.

The Past Performance Factor will receive one of the following ratings:

Table M-05.1 Performance Confidence Assessments

M-05.3.2 Recency Assessment The Government will assess performance information, including Past Performance Information (PPI) and Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) data to determine if it is recent. For evaluation purposes, “recent” is defined as an effort that is ongoing or being performed during the five (5) year period preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance. Past performance information that does not meet the above conditions will be considered not recent and will not be considered for evaluation.

M-05.3.3 Relevancy Assessment The Government will evaluate recent performance information, including PPI and PPQ data, to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical, Management, and Cost/Price factor/subfactors. In assessing relevancy, consideration will be given to, but not limited by, such items as similarity of the size, scope, complexity, contract type, contract dollar value, program phase, division of company, major or key subcontractors, teaming partners and joint ventures. Additionally, the Government will consider the Offeror’s technical content and complexity, problem resolution, lessons learned, and customer satisfaction. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The Government may consider as relevant, efforts performed for other agencies of federal, state, or local governments, and commercial customers. More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the performance confidence rating than less relevant efforts. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a neutral/unknown confidence rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

In considering how relevant an Offeror’s performance history is to this acquisition, the Government will assign one of the following relevancy ratings to each past performance citation:

Table M-05.2 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

M-05.3.4 Quality Assessment The Government will consider the performance level of recent, relevant efforts. The Government will assign one of the following performance ratings to each past performance citation:

Table M-05.3 Performance Assessment Rating

M-05.3.5 Small Business Utilization The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s record to assess its utilization of small businesses and its past performance in achieving subcontracting goals established in prior subcontracting plans. Pursuant to DFARS 215.305, the assessment will consider the extent to which the Offeror’s evaluated past performance complied with small business subcontracting objectives and goals in contracts which included FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (large businesses only). The Offeror’s small business utilization past performance will be rated as defined in Table M-05.4 below.

Table M-05.4 Small Business Utilization Performance Ratings and Definitions

M-5.3.6 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 verifiable unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. When relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of 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-05.4 Cost/Price Factor (Factor 4)

M-5.4.1 Reasonableness and Realism

The burden of proof for cost/price reasonableness and realism rests with the Offeror. The Offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404.

Fixed price contract line items: The Government will use one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404 to evaluate the Offeror's proposed prices for fixed price line items. The Government will not adjust the Offeror's proposed fixed prices for cost realism; however, unrealistically low fixed prices may be grounds for eliminating an Offeror from the competition on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the magnitude and complexity of the requirement. Apparent lack of cost realism, if any, will be a subject for discussion, if discussions are held, with Offerors determined to be within the competitive range. Data other than certified cost or pricing data per FAR 15.403 will be reviewed for currency for fair and reasonable price determination.

Cost type contract line items: The Government will evaluate cost reimbursement line items for cost realism and reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404. Apparent lack of cost realism, if any, will be a subject for discussions, if discussions are held, with Offerors determined to be within the competitive range. The Government will use the results of the cost realism analysis to determine the total evaluated probable cost of the Offeror's cost reimbursement line items. The Government will apply the Offeror's proposed fees (fixed fee or incentive fee) within the Probable Cost calculations.

Cost realism analysis is the process of reviewing and evaluating specific elements of the proposed cost to determine whether the proposed costs are realistic for the work to be performed, reflects a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the Offeror's proposal. Cost realism analysis on the proposed effort determines the Probable Cost of performance for those efforts, taking into consideration the Offeror's unique business methods, operating procedures, and practices. 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. The Probable Cost is determined by adjusting the Offeror's proposed cost, when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements based on the results of the cost realism analysis. The results of the cost realism analysis may also be considered in the evaluation of the Technical/Management factor to assess the Offeror's understanding of the magnitude and complexity of the contract requirements.

M-05.4.2 Overall Evaluated Probable Cost/Price 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 overall evaluated probable cost/price includes:

(1) The Government’s estimate of the realistic cost of successfully completing the cost reimbursement line items using the Offeror’s unique approach,

(2) The upward adjustment made to proposed target cost for the CPIF CLINs,

(3) The impact to cost sharing that would occur if Offeror’s proposed target cost is exceeded by the amount of the Government’s cost adjustment.

(4) The total amount of the Offeror’s fixed price line items,

(5) The total amount of any additional costs to the Government which are necessary to support the Offeror’s unique approach (e.g. government furnished equipment, information, facilities, and any other government property proposed by the Offeror).

For CLIN 0006 (CLEAR Radar Special Studies Option) and CLIN 0013 (COD Radar Special Studies Option), the overall evaluated probable cost will be calculated by applying the proposed unit cost and fee to notional labor hours.

Section M: Evaluation Factors for Award

HQ0147-11-R-0002

image1.png