ATTACHMENT_2.pdf

ATTACHMENT 2

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the four (4) evaluation factors: Technical, Past Performance, Cost/Price, and Small Business Participation Plan.

TECHNICAL

Factor 1 – Technical Approach

Sub-factor 1.1: Channel Emulator/RF Matrix

Sub-factor 1.2: Software Defined Radios

Sub-factor 1.3: RF Enclosures

Factor 2: Contractor Qualifications and Experience

PAST PERFORMANCE

COST/PRICE

SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

Technical is significantly more important than Past Performance, Cost/Price, and Small Business

Participation, which are of equal importance. Under Technical, Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2.

Within Factor 1, all sub-factors are of equal importance. Past Performance and Small Business

Participation are more important than Cost/Price. Taken together, the non-price combined are significantly more important than Cost/Price.

To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for Technical.

An unacceptable evaluation rating for any subfactor will result in an unacceptable technical rating.

Offerors are cautioned that the award may not be necessarily made to the lowest price offered.

2.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA

The following evaluation criteria will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and sub-factors described below.

2.1 Volume II-Technical Proposal

Factor 1: Technical Approach is composed of the following sub-factors:

Sub-factor 1.1: Channel Emulator/RF Matrix

Sub-factor 1.1: Channel Emulator/RF Matrix

a. Degree to which the offeror supports mesh networking and input/output port flexibility in the channel emulator/RF matrix (Specification 3.1.1 - 3.1.6).

b. Degree to which the offeror supports integration with the NRL EMANE emulator, including degree to which channel parameters are supported (Specification 3.1.11).

c. Degree to which the offeror supports external mobility control of the emulation, including specification of node location, velocity and orientation (Specification 3.1.12).

d. Degree to which the offeror supports various RF channel models and propagation characteristics

(3.1.10, 3.1.4)

e. Degree to which the offeror allows for expansion of the number of nodes supported beyond the minimum requirement.

f. Degree to which the offeror supports integration of GPS emulators into the RF matrix

g. Degree to which the offer meets the threshold key performance parameters.

h. Degree to which the offer meets the objective key performance parameters.

i. Degree to which the channel emulator/RF matrix can be configured to support the maximum number of nodes with the widest bandwidth reasonable while still supporting all of the other functional requirements (specification, 3.1)

j. Degree to which the channel emulator/RF matrix can be controlled using external controllers via a documented API (Specification, 3.1)

a. Degree to which offeror supports compatibility with the GNU Radio SDR framework, including support for drivers for the Linux operating system.

b. Degree to which the offeror meets the threshold key performance parameters.

c. Degree to which the offeror meets the objective key performance parameters

d. Degree to which the offeror supports one or more wideband receivers, including support for instantons bandwidth beyond 500 MHz

a. Degree to which the RF enclosures support insolation beyond 80 dB across the supported frequency range.

b. Degree to which the RF enclosures support fitting software defined radios beyond a single Ettus

Research X310.

Factor 2: Contractor Qualifications and Experience

a. Degree to which the offeror demonstrates complete understanding of the technical requirements and the general nature of the tasks set forth in the statement of work (SOW).

b. Degree of the offeror’s soundness of the approach by a feasible and workable program for each task requirement. In addition, the proposal must demonstrate credibility, realism, and logic to the proposed tasking requirements and required deliverables. The government will assess the relevance and breadth of the offeror’s experience with regard to work in efforts that are of the same complexity and scope as those required to perform the requirements of the basic contract.

c. Degree to which the offeror demonstrates experience in delivering and installing similar systems to other organizations.

d. The extent to which the offeror possesses experience to meet security (physical, information, etc.)

compliance for this requirement.

2.2 Volume III- Past Performance. Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine recency and relevancy.

a. The Past Performance evaluation will assess the relative risks associated with an offeror's likelihood of success in performing the solicitation's requirements as indicated by that offeror's record of past performance. The Past Performance Factor will assess the extent to which the offeror's past performance reflects knowledge, technical and managerial proficiency. The

Government will conduct a past performance assessment based on the quality, relevancy and recency of the offeror's past performance, as well as that of its major subcontractors, as it relates to the probability of successful accomplishment of the required effort.

b. Areas of relevance include engineering, documentation, delivery, design and Integration of the software defined radio test bed; verification and validation testing of the SDR Test Bed and its components to ensure full operability and compliance with the SOW; and installation and training of the entire system as described in this SOW and specification documents. The Government will assess the extent to which the offeror's past performance reflects effective methods to control schedule and cost/price to meet all project objectives in their past performance. Also evaluated will be the record of compliance with previous contract requirements, accuracy and timeliness of reports, technical excellence, and quality. The extent to which past performance reflects good operational support, reliability, and responsiveness to technical direction, initiative, and adequacy of resources will be evaluated.

c. The offeror’s past performance shall be considered recent if performance has occurred within three (3) years of the proposal submission due date.

d. Past performance information on work for State and local governments, private sector clients, and subcontractors that is similar to the Government requirement will be evaluated equally with similar Federal contracts. In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of

“neutral.”

2.3 Volume IV- Cost/Price. The Government will perform price reasonableness in accordance with FAR

15.404-1.

a. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Cost/Price Volume for completeness (i.e., compliance with the Cost/Price instruction) and price reasonableness. Cost/Price Proposals will not be scored, ranked, nor rated.

b. Cost/Price reasonableness will be established by competition and determined primarily by comparison with other offers submitted. The proposed costs/prices also will be compared with the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE).

c. Cost/Price reasonableness will be established by comparing proposed prices with prices obtained through market research for the same or similar items.

2.4 Volume V - Small Business Participation Plan. Offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of small businesses in the performance of acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and goals established. The extent to which the offeror proposes to subcontract with small business and the probability of successful accomplishment of proposed goals as indicated by the offeror’s history of compliance with small business goals and its documentation to support its commitment to the proposed participation percentages or lack thereof. The following shall evidence small business participation:

a. The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

b. The extent of commitment to use such firms (enforceable commitments will be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones;

c. The complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform;

d. Past performance of the offeror in complying with requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and, for all large business offerors, FAR 52.219-9, Small

Business Subcontracting Plan;

http://www.acquisition.gov/far/current/html/52_217_221.html http://www.acquisition.gov/far/current/html/52_217_221.html

3.0 Ratings

3.1 Technical Ratings. The following color adjectival/technical ratings and combined risk assessments will be used (for both Factor and Subfactor level) for the Technical criteria as defined in the Tables below. Risk will be considered in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Technical Risks

Adjectival Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal

Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

3.2 Past Performance Ratings. The following Tables provide rating definitions concerning the relevancy and recency of past performance information as well as rating definitions reflecting the quality and usefulness of the past performance information.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

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

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Performance Confidence Assessments

Substantial Confidence 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 Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence 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. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence 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 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.

3.3 Small Business Participation Plan Ratings. Small Business Participation Plan will be evaluated to the extent to which the offeror proposes to subcontract with small business and the probability of successful accomplishment of proposed goals. Small Business Participation Plan will be evaluated as Acceptable or

Unacceptable

Small Business Participation Plan

COLOR RATING DESCRIPTION

Green Acceptable: Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Red Unacceptable: Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

3.4 Definitions.

a. 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.

b. Weakness is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

c. Significant Weakness is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

d. 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.

e. Risk 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 or sub-factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

f. 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.

g. 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.

h. 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 solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.