N00024-15-R-6400_Amendment_0004.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to provide responses to bidder questions and revise N00024-15-R-6400 accordingly.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

U 1 16

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 01-Jun-2015

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X N00024-15-R-6400

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

09-Apr-2015

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

01-Jun-2015

CODE

NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND (HQ)

1333 ISAAC HULL AVE SE

WASHINGTON NAVY YARD DC 20376-2030

N00024 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N00024-15-R-6400

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

Evaluation Factor for Award

1. Basis For Award

The contract will be awarded in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.215-1. The Government intends to make one award under this solicitation that will be made to the responsible, responsive Offeror who represents the best overall value to the Government, considering the factors identified below. In making its best value determination, the Government considers the non-price factor and subfactors (Volume I – Technical

Proposal), when combined, to be significantly more important than price factor (Volume II– Cost/Price Proposal).

However, the significance of price as an evaluation factor will increase with the degree of equality in the overall technical merit of proposals. The Government reserves the right to award the contract to the Offeror with the higher total evaluated price; if a higher technical rating and/or past performance assessment would yield the best value to the Government.

Furthermore, the contract will be awarded to the responsible Offeror who has been granted a SECRET facility security clearance by a military department.

The offers must be realistic in both technical approach and total evaluated price. Offers that are unrealistic in terms of technical approach or are unrealistically low in price may indicate a lack of understanding of the complexity and risk associated with the contract requirements. The ability of the Offeror to perform all aspects of the anticipated contract from inception to completion will be considered as part of the overall “cost realism” evaluation for FPI, Cost, and CPFF items and “price reasonableness” for FFP items.

Pursuant to FAR 52.215-1(f), Instructions to Offerors-Competitive Acquisition (JAN 2004), the Government may evaluate offers and award the contract without discussions with Offerors. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the PCO determines them to be necessary or in the best interest of the Government.

The Government will review the information required by Section L to determine if the Offeror has met the minimum submission requirements. No award will be made to an Offeror who fails to submit required documents.

Offers submitted on a basis other than Free on Board (F.O.B.) Origin shall be rejected as non-responsive.

Proposals will be evaluated on how well the proposals meet or exceed the requirements of the solicitation based on the Factors and subfactors set forth below. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to provide information that clearly demonstrates its ability to satisfactorily respond to the solicitation requirements, the factors, and the subfactors listed below.

Each subfactor will be evaluated on a stand-alone basis; however, information contained in one subfactor of the proposal may be used to assist the Government in evaluating other subfactors of the proposal.

In accordance with FAR 52.217-5, except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the

Government’s best interest, the evaluated price will include options; however, the evaluation of options does not in any way obligate the Government to exercise any option.

2. EXPLANATION OF RATINGS

2.1. Definitions

Strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies will be identified for any portion of an Offeror’s proposal.

Deficiency

“Deficiency” is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Strengths “Strength” is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance. A “significant strength” is an aspect that appreciably decreases risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Weaknesses “Weakness” means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A

“significant weakness” in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Risk

“Risk”, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Performance Confidence Assessment

“Performance Confidence Assessment” is an evaluation of the likelihood (or Government’s confidence) that the

Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements; the evaluation is based upon past performance information.

Recency

“Recency”, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

Relevancy

“Relevancy”, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

2.2. Adjectival Ratings for Technical Approach, Quality Approach, and Management Approach

Subfactors

The "Adjectival Ratings" to be used for evaluating all Technical Subfactors except for Past Performance are listed below. A proposal need not have all aspects of the rating description to be rated accordingly.

Outstanding: An outstanding proposal is characterized as follows:

Proposal meets requirements and indicated an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements.

Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good: A good proposal is characterized as follows:

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable: An acceptable proposal is characterized as follows:

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal: A marginal proposal is characterized as follows:

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable: An unacceptable proposal is characterized as follows:

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

2.3. Adjectival Ratings for Past Performance Subfactor

There are two aspects to the Government’s evaluation of an Offeror’s Past Performance: Relevancy and

Performance Confidence. Initially, the Government will determine the relevancy of an Offeror’s past performance and issue an “Adjectival Rating” for Relevancy. Then the Government will then issue a second “Adjectival Rating” for the confidence level for successful performance of the contract based on the Offeror’s past performance. Thus, the overall Past Performance rating will be a combination of the Relevancy Rating and the Performance Confidence

Rating. For example, an Offeror could have a past performance rating of Very Relevant, Substantial Confidence.

The "Adjectival Ratings" to be used for evaluating the Past Performance Subfactors are listed below. A proposal need not have all aspects of the rating description to be rated accordingly.

2.3.1. Relevancy Ratings

Very Relevant: Very Relevant past performance is characterized as follows:

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant: Relevant past performance is characterized as follows:

Present/past performance effort involved much of the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this

Somewhat Relevant: Somewhat Relevant past performance is characterized as follows:

Present/past performance effort involved some of the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this

Not Relevant: Not Relevant past performance is characterized as follows:

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2.3.2. Performance Confidence Assessments

Substantial Confidence: A Substantial Confidence rating is characterized as follows:

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

Satisfactory Confidence: A Satisfactory Confidence rating is characterized as follows:

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the

Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence: A Limited Confidence rating is characterized as follows:

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

No Confidence: A No Confidence rating is characterized as follows:

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

Unknown Confidence (Neutral): An Unknown Confidence (Neutral) rating is characterized as follows:

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

3. GENERAL

In selecting the offer that represents the best overall value to the Government, the following will be evaluated:

Factor 1: Technical / Non-Price Factors

Factor 2: Government Total Evaluated Price

4. TECHNICAL/NON-PRICE

The technical proposal will be evaluated to assess the Offeror’s understanding of the scope of the work and its overall approach to meeting the solicitation’s requirements. The technical evaluation will be based on the following four subfactors:

SUBFACTOR 1 – Technical Approach

SUBFACTOR 2 – Management Approach

SUBFACTOR 3 – Quality Approach

SUBFACTOR 4 – Past Performance

Technical subfactors shall be weighted in the following descending order of importance: Subfactor 1, Technical

Approach; Subfactor 2, Management Approach; Subfactor 3, Quality Approach; and Subfactor 4, Past Performance.

5. FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL EVALUATION

The Section L Addendum 2 cross reference matrix provided by the Offeror will be reviewed to verify that all solicitation technical requirements are covered by the proposal.

The technical merit evaluation will be based upon the following subfactors: Subfactor 1 – Technical Approach, Subfactor 2 – Management Approach, Subfactor 3 – Quality Approach, Subfactor 4 – Past Performance.

5.1. SUBFACTOR 1 – Technical Approach

All information will be reviewed in detail to ascertain the quality and depth of the responses to the information required by Section L. The evaluation will consider how well the information demonstrates that the Offeror’s technical approach is capable of designing, manufacturing, and delivering MK48 Mod 7 G&C Sections, CBASS

Upgrade Kits, Factory Test Equipment, and other required deliverables that are expected to meet or exceed the specified performance and other requirements of the solicitation.

5.1.1 Systems Engineering Approach

The Offeror’s Systems Engineering Approach will be evaluated for the degree to which the Offeror’s Systems

Engineering Approach will meet the requirements of the solicitation and Statement of Work (Section C) and the degree to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of the following areas:

a. The systems engineering process including preparation and maintenance of Systems Engineering documentation to support the manufacturing and delivery of the Section C deliverables.

b. An engineering Reliability approach to demonstrate design is compliant to performance specification.

5.1.2 Non-Recurring Engineering (NRE) / and Proof of Manufacture (POM)

The Offeror’s description of proposed designs and proposed Technical Data Packages (TDPs) items, both BTS and

BTP, will be evaluated for understanding of performance requirements.

The Offeror’s approach to reuse, modify, or create software and firmware for MK48 G&C Sections, MK 48 CBASS

Kits, and Factory Test Equipment will be evaluated for understanding, adequacy, and completeness.

The testing approach, including at a minimum (1) the Offeror’s description of the designs and development strategy, certification, and usage of Factory Test Equipment, and/or (2) modification of GFE Factory Test Equipment, and/or

(3) use of Government Furnished Facilities, will be evaluated for its sufficient detail to ensure requirements coverage and its ability to meet schedule.

The Offeror’s redesign and/or life of contract purchasing strategy will be evaluated for completeness and technical feasibility. The Offerors will be evaluated on their understanding of the CBASS Kit Obsolescence White Paper

(Attachment 16) and how they address the known obsolescence issues.

The Offeror's approach to implementing Design for Manufacturability & Assembly (DFMA) will be evaluated to the extent that the Offeror's proposal:

a. Demonstrates a DFMA approach that effectively evaluates and identifies mutually beneficial DFMA changes for Government consideration.

The technical approach will include the total quantity and build level of planned Contractor hardware and will be evaluated for its ability to support the NRE phase of the contract including at minimum Contractor Owned testing units. The Offeror will be evaluated on their understanding of the scope of use for Pre-POM, CBASS POM, and

G&C POM kits and how they will be using Contractor hardware to accomplish test requirements.

5.1.3 Technical Data Packages

The Offeror’s approach to develop, validate and deliver Technical Data Packages for G&C Section and CBASS

Upgrade Kit Build-to-Specification (BTS items), Build-to-Print (BTP), and Factory Test Equipment (Exhibit B

CDRLs) will be evaluated.

The proposal will be evaluated on the extent to which proprietary or otherwise limited or restricted components, subsystems, interfaces, and software are used. Rights in Technical Data/Computer Software/Computer Software

Documentation (TD/CS/CSD) will be evaluated to determine the degree to which the proposal provides the level of technical data rights (commercial and noncommercial) and rights in computer software that will enable the Navy to adequately sustain the MK48 Mod 7 G&C Section and Factory Test Equipment over their life cycle to include maintainability, reparability, and re-procurement.

In the event that an Offeror proposes to deliver any commercial or noncommercial TD/CS/CSD with less than

Government Purpose Rights (GPR), the Government will evaluate the impact on the Government's ability to use, modify, release or disclose such TD, CS, or CSD. Use of proprietary algorithms, designs, processes or interfaces will be evaluated based on the extent to which they affect the Government's overall goal and ability to acquire future support. Justification and rationale for all intellectual property and data rights assertions will be evaluated. Any proposal which asserts less than Government Purpose Rights at any system, subsystem interface or other interface

(e.g., including, but not limited to, mechanical, electrical and thermal) may be given a weakness or significant weakness under Subfactor 1: Technical Approach. The Government will conduct an evaluation of risks associated with any inability to obtain at least GPR, and this risk will impact the assigned adjectival rating for this factor.

5.1.4 Design & Obsolescence

The strategy to manage obsolescence during the contract’s period of performance will be evaluated for thoroughness. Proposed designs and associated risks to address known obsolescence issues (Attachment 1-

Baseline, Attachment 3-GFI, and Attachment 16-White Paper on Known CBASS Obsolescence) will be evaluated based upon their accuracy, realism, and completeness. The list of all items at risk of becoming obsolete during the contract period and its technical approach to address this obsolescence risk will be evaluated for completeness and for how the data was obtained.

5.1.5 Factory Test Equipment Design & Approach

The proposed Factory Test Equipment and test approach to validate MK48 Mod 7 G&C Sections and CBASS

Upgrade Kits meet the requirements of the Contract Baseline, Attachment 1, will be evaluated for the degree to which the proposal addresses requirements.

The Offeror’s descriptions and evaluations of the new design Transmitter Test Equipment, upgraded or new design

GCB Test Set, and upgraded or new design Preamp/BSAR Test Set will be evaluated for the degree to which the proposal addresses these requirements.

The Offeror’s test plans for Type I cables will be evaluated for the degree to which the proposal addresses the requirements.

The Offeror’s approach to identifying additional test equipment required for Factory Acceptance Testing will be evaluated based on any new test equipment/solutions ability to meet the Attachment 1 Contract Baseline requirements. The Offeror’s plan for all test equipment maintainability, ability to meet production requirements, certification, and its suitableness for the production environment including integration of new and GFE test equipment will be evaluated to ensure that all test requirements of this solicitation are covered. The Offeror’s approach to modify GFE test equipment, namely the GCB and BSAR/Preamp ATE and the development of a GCB

Circuit Card Assembly will be evaluated for its technical merit, understanding of the scope of changes, and its ability to meet schedule. The quantity of proposed Contractor-owned testing assets used for Factory Acceptance

Testing will be evaluated for ability to maintain a steady flow of production through the factory. The Offeror’s test procedures will be evaluated for thoroughness and the ability to meet production delivery and testing requirements.

The Offeror’s test approach including its test programs, development of test procedures, in-process testing, analyses, and inspections will be evaluated for its effectiveness to ensure that the MK48 Mod 7 G&C Sections are in compliance with the requirements of the Attachment 1 Contract Baseline.

The Offeror’s plans to optimize requirements verification to reduce schedule impacts will be evaluated for technical merit and amount of risk reduced.

The Offeror’s approach for testing/inspecting any items that are subcontracted will be evaluated for having a test/inspection strength strong enough to ensure that all Attachment 1 requirements are met.

5.1.6 Highly Accelerated Stress Screen (HASS)/Margin Testing/Proof of Life (POL) Testing

The Offeror’s plans to implement Highly Accelerated Stress Screen (HASS)/Margin Testing/Proof of Life (POL) testing per 8595331 (Attachment 1) will be evaluated for ability to meet FIR level requirements, realism of schedule, and justification that test equipment resources are available to meet delivery schedule.

5.1.7 Manufacturing Processes, Throughput & Facilities

The Offeror’s manufacturing production throughput analysis and facilities will be evaluated for the ability to meet delivery requirements of Section F and Attachment 2, Shipping Instructions Data. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s description of production processes, procedures, collection and storage of test data, material handling and controls. The Offeror’s material and manufacturing process flow chart will be evaluated for completeness and technical merit.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Factory Test Equipment maintenance, sparring, and engineering support throughput analysis for its ability to meet production requirements.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s description of their production level documentation and FIR level assembly for technical completeness.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s existing manufacturing facility and how they will be used, any specialized test facilities for environmental testing and associated goals, physical manufacturing test capabilities for production verification and factory acceptance testing, and the outsource testing capabilities plan if required.

5.1.8 Parts Management

Plans to manage parts will be evaluated on how it will cover obsolescence management, parts selection, screening for counterfeit parts, managing parts lists or Bill of Materials, subcontractor management, part and supplier quality, part level documentation, substitute and alternative part authorization, customer-contractor teaming, lead-free electronic parts and long-lead time material.

The Offeror’s approach to parts management will be evaluated for its effectiveness in ensuring that the hardware procured and utilized under this contract meets all requirements of the solicitation.

5.1.9 Security Requirements

Plans to meet facility security requirements will be evaluated for conformance to Section C requirements.

5.1.10 Contractor On-Site Support

The Offeror’s plan for providing contractor support at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division Keyport

(Washington), and Division Newport (Rhode Island) during the Proof of Manufacturing (POM) phase, POM testing, and production delivery phase of the contract will be evaluated for appropriate technical expertise and duration of support personal to be furnished.

5.1.11 Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) Control Program

The Offeror’s Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) control program will be evaluated for effectiveness to minimize effects to ESD sensitive components, assemblies, and equipment.

5.1.12 Software Development Plan (SDP)

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed software development plan and approach to ensure that the

Offeror understands the software development requirements of the solicitation with regards to the Software and

Firmware requirements of the G&C Section and of the Transmitter Test Equipment and for compliance with the minimum content requirements stated in Section L and C, and CDRL A022.

HQ L-2-0016 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (NAVSEA) (DEC 2006)

(a) As part of the proposal, offerors shall submit an initial SDP that at a minimum addresses the requirements of

Section C. The initial SDP shall not be subject to the technical proposal page limitation of the solicitation. Offerors are advised however, that initial SDPs, which are concise and well-written, may receive more favorable consideration than those that contain extraneous material and/or brochuremanship.

(b) Offerors shall also submit an SDP rationale which describes why their specific approach is appropriate for the system to be procured, developed or maintained and how their proposed processes are equivalent to those articulated by CMMI capability level 3. The SDP rationale is subject to the technical proposal page limitation of the solicitation and shall not exceed 20 pages.

HQ L-2-0017 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND CMMI OR EQUIVALENT EXPERIENCE (NAVSEA) (DEC

2006)

(a) Offerors shall submit a description of previous relevant experience, within the past 24 months in developing software of the similar size and complexity as that required under the statement of work. As a part of this description, the offerors shall describe the extent to which personnel who contributed to these previous efforts will be supporting any resultant contract.

(b) Offerors shall also describe any previous relevant CMMI or equivalent model-based process maturity appraisals performed within the past 24 months. As a part of this description, offerors shall identify the organizational entity and location where the appraisal was performed, the type of evaluation, the organization performing the evaluation, and the level earned. This description shall not exceed 5 pages.

The descriptions called for under paragraphs (a) and (b) above are subject to the technical proposal page limitation of the solicitation.

5.1.12.1 – Software Development Approach

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed software development approach to ensure it is appropriate for the system to be developed and meets standard levels of completeness and process quality. For this evaluation, the

Government will rely primarily on the draft SDP and the SDP Rationale. Criteria will be IEEE/EIA Std. 12207.1-

2008, H.3 – Characteristics of Life Cycle Data

5.1.12.2 – Software Development Experience

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s previous experience in developing software of the same nature as that being acquired with this solicitation.

5.1.12.3 – Software Development Process Experience

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s previous experience in developing software using the same or similar approach as proposed for this solicitation. The results of any standard model-based process maturity appraisals performed within 24 months prior to proposal submission, and the number of proposed staff experienced in using these processes will be part of the evaluation criteria.

5.2. SUBFACTOR 2– Management Approach

All information will be reviewed in detail to ascertain the quality and depth of the responses to the information required by Section L. The Government will consider how well the information demonstrates that the Program

Management Plan, Organizational Management, Risk Management, Configuration Management, Small Business

Subcontracting Plan and Work for Private Party Agreements will meet or exceed the requirements of the solicitation.

The Section L Addendum 2 cross reference matrix provided by the Offeror will be evaluated to verify that all solicitation’s management requirements are covered by the proposal.

5.2.1 Program Management Plan

The Offeror’s program management methodology will be evaluated based on the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed approach and methodology addresses how the principles of Integrated Product and Process Development ensures timely communication program, technical, cost, and schedule status to the Government’s management team.

The Offeror ‘s Program Management Plan and Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) will be evaluated for its completeness to address the requirements of Section C, Section L, and Exhibit A. The Offeror’s Program

Management Plan and Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) will be evaluated on its sufficient evidence that the proposal activities, processes and procedures will accomplish the requirements in this solicitation. The Offeror’s identified critical path, associated risks and mitigation plans shall be evaluated for the degree to which the proposal demonstrates the Offeror is capable of managing schedule and program risks and mitigation plans.

The Offeror’s detailed work plan , schedule, and Work Breakdown Structure will be evaluated for adequacy.

The Offeror’s organizational chart and supporting narratives will be evaluated for the degree to which the proposal demonstrates the Offeror’s key personnel meet the requirements of the contract and utilizes personel with professional and technical skills to successfully accomplish the production, test, delivery and support of the MK48

G&C Sections, MK 48 CBASS Kits, and Factory Test Equipment.

The Offeror’s identified Senior Technical Representative will be evaluated to the degree to which the proposal demonstrates the STR can manage tasks and explains the STR's authority, ability to independently commit company resources to performance under the contract, and the STR's line of communication to senior company management.

5.2.2 Organizational Management

The Offeror’s organizational management will be evaluated for integration of engineering, production, quality and management teams to overcome production risks. The staffing plan will be evaluated to verify qualifications of key personnel, that each Key Personnel is assigned to a functional area, and identifies all labor categories with labor category definitions. All Key Personnel resumes will be evaluated to the degree to which the personnel demonstrate they have a minimum of 5 years of experience in their respective field, specific capability, knowledge, and relevant experience for contract(s) of similar scope and complexity, and meet the resume requirements in section L.

5.2.3 Risk Management

The Offeror’s approach to risk management process will be evaluated for understanding of the program cost, schedule, and technical risks, including the ability to differentiate the greatest program risk and to analyze effectiveness of proposed mitigation strategies. The Offeror’s management process will be evaluated for completeness in addressing how to manage key risks identified by the Offeror.

5.2.4 Configuration Management

The Offeror’s approach to configuration management will be evaluated for effective methods/procedures for configuration identification, change control, status accounting, and audits of total configuration hardware, software, and documentation.

5.2.5 Small Business Participation

The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s Small Business Plan meets PEO SUBs small business goals as stated in Note D in Section B clause “SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING INCENTIVE” or a detailed explanation as to why the goal cannot be included in the plan.

NOTE: Although the Small Business Subcontracting plan was not required in Volume I, the non-cost elements will be used in the evaluation of the Offerors management approach.

5.2.6 Work for Private Party Agreements (WFPPA)

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Work for Private Party Agreements (WFPPA) for the scope of the planned use during execution and how they will be used to meet the requirements of this contract.

5.2.7 Subcontracting Management Plan

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Subcontracting Management Plan as to its thoroughness to divide tasks within the team, the management structure and how it will be effective for coordination, control and performance monitoring of subcontractors and prime contractor personnel. The described plan shall consider deliverables, payment tracking and reporting, points of contact and the bearer of responsibility for performance.

5.3. SUBFACTOR 3 – Quality Approach

All information will be evaluated to ascertain the quality and depth of the responses to the information required by

Section L. The evaluation will consider how well the information demonstrates that the Offeror’s quality approach -

Process Quality, Quality Management System, and Failure Resolution, is expected to result in consistent high quality and compliant product deliveries that meet or exceed the requirements of the solicitation.

The Section L Addendum 2 cross reference matrix provided by the Offeror will be reviewed to verify that all solicitation quality requirements are covered by the proposal.

5.3.1 Process Quality

The Offeror’s process flow diagrams and associated details will be evaluated to determine the degree to which the

Offeror addresses a general understanding of the test and inspection points for each FIR and for test and inspection of the full G&C Section. The Offeror’s explanation of their process improvement to reduce manufacturing defects will be evaluated for adequacy.

The Offeror’s Quality personnel will be evaluated based on how well they are integrated into the design, manufacturing and product assurance activities.

5.3.2 Quality Management System

The Offeror’s quality assurance methods and processes will be evaluated in accordance with how well they allow the Offeror to identify, assess, mitigate, implement and document substandard workmanship or nonconforming products. The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the degree to which the proposal demonstrates the conformation to ISO or AS9100C standards.

The Offeror’s QPP will be evaluated to ensure that deliverables will meet Attachment 7, Quality Assurance

Surveillance Plan (QASP) criteria. The Offeror’s QPP will be evaluated on the degree to which the proposal demonstrates the Offeror’s use of Statistical Process Control.

5.3.3 Failure Resolution

The Offeror’s approach to failure resolution will be evaluated for perceived effectiveness to identify/document failure root cause analysis and determine the appropriate corrective actions to meet the requirements of this solicitation.

The Offeror’s approach to meeting Failure Analysis and Corrective Action Report – Failures Prior to Factory

Acceptance Test and During HASS CDRL A031 and Failure Analysis and Corrective Action Report – Failures

During First Article, POM, Factory Acceptance Testing, Conditional Acceptance and Government POM Testing

CDRL A032 failure reporting and resolution requirements, will be evaluated based on how effectively Failure

Analysis and Corrective Action Report – Failures Prior to Factory Acceptance Test and During HASS CDRL A031 and Failure Analysis and Corrective Action Report – Failures During First Article, POM, Factory Acceptance

Testing, Conditional Acceptance and Government POM Testing CDRL A032 failure reporting requirements will be met regardless of the Contractor’s decision to flow testing to a subcontractor or vendor.

5.4. SUBFACTOR 4 – Past Performance

The past performance evaluation will take into account information submitted by each Offeror and subcontractor as part of its proposal including: Past Performance Questionnaires, Past Performance Reference List, Past Performance

Self-Assessment, and the Government’s evaluation of the proposal and evaluation of other sources of information.

Offerors who have demonstrated successful performance similar to the stated requirements, in whole or in part, will be evaluated higher than those who have performed less. Offerors who do not have relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, will receive an Unknown Confidence (Neutral rating), and will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Each relevant contract shall have been performed during the past (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. This evaluation will be based on the quality, relevance and customer satisfaction of the demonstrated past performance. Contracts in which the

Offeror successfully manufactured and tested torpedo arrays or electronics comparable to the MK48 Mod 7 G&C

Section FIRs will be deemed most relevant.

The evaluation of past performance will assess the relative capability of the Offeror to meet the requirements of the proposed contract as demonstrated by relevant past performance. This evaluation will consider relevancy (i.e., similar size, scope, complexity) as determined by the Government, recency, the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Offeror’s referenced performance. In evaluating past performance, the

Government may contact references submitted by Offerors and also may use information in the DoD files or obtained from other sources who may have relevant and useful information, such as customers known to the

Government and consumer protection organizations, and personal knowledge. Contracts with U.S. Government customers may be considered more relevant than other non-government contracts.

In accordance with NMCARS 5215.305, the past performance information to be used in this evaluation may be obtained through the automated Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The PPIRS automated information system is a web-based application found at http://www.ppirs.gov. Other sources may be used as appropriate.

6. COST/PRICE EVALUATION

6.1.

The information presented in the Cost/Price Proposal will be evaluated by the Government to determine:

(i) the extent to which the Offeror understands the Government's requirements and

(ii) that the prices proposed for the Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINS are fair and reasonable for the work to be performed and

(iii) that the costs proposed on the Fixed Price Incentive (FPI), the Cost and Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) CLINS are fair and reasonable and realistic for the work to be performed.

The Government will consider the price reasonableness of FFP CLINs and the cost realism of FPI, Cost, and CPFF

CLINs of the Offeror’s proposal. The quality of the price evaluation will be affected by the quality of the Offeror’s submission and supporting cost data. Poor or inadequate supporting cost data may negatively impact the

Government’s price evaluation of the Offeror. If the Offerors proposed price is considered unrealistic the

Government may adjust the Offerors proposed price upward for other than FFP CLINs.

Omitted data may result in Government assumptions regarding the omitted data. Such assumptions may be detrimental to the Offeror; therefore, Offerors are encouraged to submit as complete a disclosure of their pricing methodologies as it deems appropriate. Offerors shall round dollar amounts to the nearest whole dollar. The final dollar amount per CLIN in Section B of the offer shall be rounded to the nearest dollar. Offerors shall round ratios, factors, and decimal numbers to four decimal places to the right of the decimal point.

The evaluated price will include all options; however, the evaluation of options does not in any way obligate the

Government to exercise any option.

6.2.

Pertinent cost information available to the Government including, but not limited to, Defense Contract Audit

Agency (DCAA) recommended rates for such costs as direct labor, overhead, G&A, etc., as necessary and appropriate, will be considered in arriving at the Government determination of the estimated cost to be incurred in the performance of the contract as detailed below.

Offerors are advised that an offer that includes unbalanced pricing between the basic requirement and any options may be rejected. As defined in FAR 15.404-1, unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. Offerors as advised that, in the event cost provided in COST SUMMARY

Tables L-1 (Fixed Price Incentive) and L-2 (Cost Plus Fixed Fee) differ from cost provided in Section B, the greater cost will be used in developing the Government Total Evaluated Price (GTEP).

6.2.1.

In evaluating offers, the Government will calculate a GTEP. The GTEP will be the sum of the evaluated FPI, Cost, and Cost Plus Fixed Fee CLINs (as calculated using cost realism analysis), plus the sum of the Evaluated Prices of the FFP CLINs (as explained below):

http://www.ppirs.gov/

6.2.1.1. Evaluation for Hardware - CLIN 0001

The Government will perform a detailed review and evaluation of each Offeror's pricing proposal to assess and evaluate the cost realism of the offeror's proposed price for CLIN 0001 which is designated as FPI. The

Government will evaluate the realism of the target price by considering the Offeror's proposed labor hours, labor rates, material costs, burden rates and other costs in light of data available to the Contracting Officer, including the relationship of such proposed labor hours and costs to the effort described in the Offeror's technical proposal, and

Government estimates for: (1) direct labor hours, (2) material costs, (3) direct labor costs, (4) overhead and G&A costs, and (5) any other costs which are likely to be incurred by the Offeror in performance of the requirements of the solicitation. The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for cost realism of the proposed level of effort based on the requirements of the RFP and the Offeror’s understanding of the scope of the work.

Costs/price proposed in Table L-1 may be adjusted for cost realism purposes. The proposed or adjusted target price will be used in the calculation of the GTEP. All Government calculations will be rounded to the nearest whole dollar.

6.2.1.2. Evaluation for Hardware - CLINs 0002, 0003, 0004, 0005, 0013, 0103, 0104, 0105, 0203, 0204, 0205, 0303, 0304, 0305, 0403, 0404 and 0405.

(a) The Government will perform a detailed review and evaluation of each Offeror's pricing proposal to assess and evaluate the price reasonableness of the offeror's proposed prices for those CLINS that are designated as Firm Fixed

Price. The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for price reasonableness based on the requirements of the

RFP.

(b) For those items with step-ladder quantities - CLINs 0003, 0004, 0005, 0103, 0104, 0105, 0203, 0204, 0205, 0303, 0304, 0305, 0403, 0404 and 0405 - the Government will use a predetermined (but not disclosed to Offerors) quantity within the range of stepladder quantities to evaluate each CLIN and will evaluate that quantity that includes the fully burdened fixed price unit price (unit cost plus profit). The selected predetermined quantity within the range of stepladder quantities may be different between CLINs. The unit price for the predetermined selected stepladder quantity for each CLIN listed in this paragraph will be used in the calculation of the GTEP. The amount used in the calculation of the GTEP will be the Offeror-proposed unit price multiplied by the Government predetermined quantity.

6.2.1.3. Evaluation for Other Direct Costs (Subsistence) - CLINs 0006, 0106, 0206, 0306, and

ODCs CLINs, shall be evaluated at $750,000 per CLIN and will be used in the calculation of the GTEP.

6.2.1.4. Evaluation for Data - CLIN 0007

The Data CLIN is not separately priced and will not be evaluated separately for price reasonableness and cost realism. Costs for the Data CLIN are not separately priced and will be included in and evaluated as part of the requiring CLINs. However, the Offeror shall include prices in Blocks 17 and 18 of the requiring CDRL.

6.2.1.5. Evaluation for Engineering Services and Support - CLINs 0008, 0108, 0208, 0308, and

Using the Offeror’s proposed Table L-2 “Cost Summary (Cost Plus Fixed Fee CLINs)” described in Section L the

Government will calculate the price to be used in the evaluation by:

Step 1) calculate the weighted average, based on the distribution of hours, of all fully burdened labor rates (including fee) provided in Table L-2 described in Section L for each CLIN, Step 2) multiply the weighted average fully burdened labor rate per hour (from step 1) by 80,000 hours resulting in the

Government evaluated price used in the calculation of the GTEP (unless adjustments are made for cost realism purposes).

Steps 1 and 2 will be repeated for CLINs 0008, 0108, 0208, 0308, and 0408. Costs proposed in table L-2 may be adjusted for cost realism purposes. All Government calculations will be rounded to the nearest whole dollar.

For example:

Step 1) Weighted average fully burdened labor rate (including fee) from Table L-2 is calculated to be = $100/hour

Step 2) The Government evaluated price = $100/hour * 80,000 hours = $8,000,000

In this example, the amount used in the calculation of the GTEP would be $8,000,000. The above example does not reflect any adjustments made as a result of cost realism analysis.

6.2.1.6. Evaluation for Hardware Repair and Maintenance Services- CLINs 0009, 0109, 0209, 0309, and 0409

Using the Offeror’s proposed Table L-2 “Cost Summary (Cost Plus Fixed Fee CLINs)” described in Section L the

Government will calculate the price to be used in the evaluation by:

Step 1) calculate the weighted average, based on the distribution of hours, of all fully burdened labor rates (including fee) provided in Table L-2 described in Section L for each CLIN, Step 2) multiply the weighted average fully burdened labor rate per hour (from step 1) by 8,000 hours resulting in the

Government evaluated price used in the calculation of the GTEP (unless adjustments are made for cost realism purposes).

Steps 1 and 2 will be repeated for CLINs 0009, 0109, 0209, 0309, and 0409. Costs proposed in table L-2 may be adjusted for cost realism purposes. All Government calculations will be rounded to the nearest whole dollar.

Step 1) Weighted average fully burdened labor rate (excluding fee) from Table L-2 is calculated to be = $90/hour

Step 2) The Government evaluated price = $90/hour * 8,000 hours = $720,000

In this example, the amount used in the calculation of the GTEP would be $720,000. The above example does not reflect any adjustments made as a result of cost realism analysis.

6.2.1.7 Evaluation for Spare Components and Production Support Material - CLINs 0010, 0011, 0110, 0111, 0210, 0211, 0310, 0311, 0410 and 0411

Using the Offeror’s proposed unit prices for the items listed in Exhibit C (MK48 Mod 7 G&C Sections and CBASS

Upgrade Kits Spares List) and Exhibit D (MK 48 MOD 7 CBASS G&C Sections and CBASS Upgrade Kit

Production Support Material) , the Government will calculate the price to be used in the evaluation by calculating a total lot price under each Exhibit for each CLIN. The Offeror’s proposed unit prices for each item listed in Exhibits

C and D will be multiplied by a quantity of 30 units to reach a total item price. Each of the total item prices will be added together to reach a total evaluated lot price for each Exhibit for each CLIN. The total evaluated lot price for

Exhibit C for each of CLINs 0010, 0110, 0210, 0310, and 0410 will be added together to calculate the GTEP for

Spare Components. The total evaluated lot price for Exhibit D for each of CLINs 0011, 0111, 0211, 0311, and 0411 will be added together to calculate the GTEP for Production Support Material.

The quantity of 30 is solely for the purposes of evaluation and does not constitute a Government estimate of spares necessary for the subject procurement. The quantity of thirty (30) will be used in evaluating both Exhibit C and D.

Exhibit C – MK48 Mod 7 G&C Section Spares List

Part

Number

Nomenclature Quantity

Unit

Price

Total Price

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

Guidance Control Box (GCB)

Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) Filter

Autopilot Interface Controller (AIC) Circuit Card

Assembly (CCA)

Communications Interface Controller (CIC) CCA

Transmitter Waveform Controller (TWC) CCA

Synchronous Bus Interface (SBI) Card

Data Processor (DP) Card

Power Module (PM) 1

PM2

PM3

PM4

PM5

PM6

PM7

Broadband Sonar Analog Receiver (BSAR)

Forward Sonar Preprocessor (SPP)

Aft SPP

Forward Receiver

Aft Receiver

Pre-Amplifier

Nose Array

Transmitter

Power…