N6660415R00300001.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

See Page #2

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 16

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 27-Mar-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 N66604-15-R-0030

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

12-Mar-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 2 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

26-Mar-2015

CODE

NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE CENTER

MICHAEL BROOMFIELD, CODE 0222

CONTRACTS DEPARTMENT

1176 HOWELL STREET, BLDG. 1258

NEWPORT RI 02841

N66604 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N66604-15-R-0030

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

GENERAL INFORMATION

THE CLOSING DATE FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS REMAINS UNCHANGED AT 22

APRIL 2015.

The purpose of this amendment is as follows:

1) Respond to vendor questions.

2) Revise Clauses L34X and M32X by clarifying the Data Rights requirement for non-commercial hardware and software to be submitted for the TDP

3) Delete clause HQ D-2-0004 Identification Marking of Parts

4) Incorporate Clause HQ L-2-0016 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

(NAVSEA) (DEC 2006)

5) Incorporate Clause HQ L-2-0017 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND CMMI OR

EQUIVALENT EXPERIENCE (NAVSEA) (DEC 2006)

6) Incorporate Clause HQ M-2-0015 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION

FACTORS FOR AWARD (NAVSEA) (DEC 2006)

7) Attach the TDP selection worksheet – Attachment 6, noted in Section J

QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Miscellaneous

1) Clarification: The specification requires the bidding of Non-Recurring Engineering (NRE) costs, however, the CLIN structure set forth in the RFP does not identify where the NRE costs should be incorporated. Please clarify how NRE costs should be incorporated.

Gov Response: It is the contractor’s decision to determine how their proposed costs should be allocated.

Section C- Descriptions and Specifications

2) 4.2.1 – Technical Data Package (TDP) Requirements, pg. 21.

Question: Will the USN provide the “Government Approved Format” for the CAD drawing files before the RFP due date?

Gov Response: See attached TDP selection worksheet

3) C16, Cost and Performance Reporting, Paragraph C, No. 1 – Access, pg. 22.

Question: Section C paragraph one “Contract Manpower Reporting” and section C16 “Cost and

Performance Reporting” indicate a requirement to report man-hour expenditures through the eCRAFT system. Please confirm that the requirements apply to only the Engineering Services, CLIN 0017 and option Engineering Services CLINs.

Gov Response: The Cost and Performance Reporting requirement applies to Engineering Services type line items only.

4) C16, Cost and Performance Reporting, Paragraph C, No. 4 –Submission and Approval, pg. 23.

Question: Is payment of invoices submitted through Wide Area Workflow (WAWF) dependent on eCraft approval? How long does the government have for approval of eCraft submissions?

Gov Response: Our understanding is that Payment of Wide Area Workflow (WAWF) invoices is independent of eCraft approval and the Gov has approximately two weeks to approve eCraft submissions.

5) HQ C-1-0001 Item(s) – Data Requirements (NAVSEA) (SEP 1992), pg. 26

Question: Please advise how industry can appropriately propose the cost and schedule costs for the work scope associated with each CDRL if the DD Form 1423 for all CDRLs is not provided before the proposal due date.

Gov Response: Contractors are advised to use historiical or other costing methods at their disposal to calculate a cost estimate for CDRLs. The DD Form 1423 will be provided with each individual Task Order request for quote.

6) HQ C-2-0065 Software Development Requirements, pg. 33.

Question: The EMATT program currently does not have a requirement for a Software Development Plan to meet ISO/IEC/IEEE 15289:2011. Is it the Navy's desire to add this new requirement and its associated costs?

Gov response: Software Development Plans are required for all developments with software.

7) HQ C-2-0065 Software Development Requirements, pg. 33.

Question: Does the software development plan count as part of the technical volume page limit? If not, should it be included as an appendix?

Gov response: Please reference Software Development Plan clauses added to Sections L & M noted above.

Section D – Packaging and Marking

8) HQ D-2-0004 Identification Marking of Parts, pg. 35.

Question: As an expendable item with no Depot Maintenance, the EMATT program presently does not have any parts identification marking requirements. Is it the Navy's desire to add this new requirement and its associated costs?

Gov response: We identify our marking as part of the performance specification and the clause is hereby deleted in its entirety.

Section I – Contract Clauses

9) 52.219-4 Notice Of Price Evaluation Preference For Hubzone Small Business Concerns (Oct 2014), pg.

Question: 52.219-4 is incorporated and indicates that offers will be evaluated by adding a factor of 10 percent to the price of all offers except from Hubzone small business concerns or small business concerns. However section M32X “Evaluation for Award – Best Value” does not indicate this 10% adder for bids from companies not meeting Hubzone or small business concern criteria and is therefore inconsistent. Please clarify the cost evaluation criteria as it pertains to the applicability of the 10% factor.

Gov response: As prescribed in FAR 19.1309(b): The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.219-

4, Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns, in solicitations and contracts for acquisitions conducted using full and open competition.

10) 52.215-20 Requirements For Cost or Pricing Data or Information Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing

Data (Oct 2010), pg. 104

Question: Will the Navy consider removing FAR 52.215-20 since this is a competitive procurement and the customer has ability to request cost and pricing data should there be only one offerer under FAR

52.215-7008?

Gov response: As prescribed in FAR 15.408(l): The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 52.215-

20, Requirements for Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data, in solicitations if it is reasonably certain that certified cost or pricing data or data other than certified cost or pricing data will be required.

This provision also provides instructions to offerors on how to request an exception from the requirement to submit certified cost or pricing data.

Section L – Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders

11) DFAR 252.215-7008 Only One Offer (Oct 2013), pg. 106.

Question: This solicitation includes DFAR 252.215-7008 Only One Offer. In order to prepare for this possibility, Proposer assumes that only one (1) year at a time of the five (5) year program will be funded, and that the funding will be limited to the quantities defined in Solicitation N66604-15-R-0030, Section B

Stepladder Pricing. For CAPA (Cost and Pricing Analysis) consideration, is it permissible for only the maximum, single year, government defined stepladder quantity’s procurement be considered?

Gov response: In order to be considered for award, the contractor shall separately price each of the stepladder quantity ranges identified in Section B. The Governments evaluation of the contractors proposed prices shall be in accordance with Section M32X.

12) L30X – Proposal Submission – General Requirements (Jan 2012), pg. 109.

Question: If 11x17 fold-outs are used, do they count as 1 or 2 pages towards the 30 page limit for the technical volume? Also, do the title page and table of contents count toward the 30 page limit for the technical volume?

Gov response: 11x17 fold-outs are counted as a single page and the title page and table of contents shall not count toward the 30 page limit

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

13) M32X – Evaluation For Award – Best Value (Sep 2011), pg. 120.

Question: Reference section M32X, Evaluation for Award, (3): The Pass/Fail requirement regarding Data

Rights does not acknowledge that less than Government Purpose Rights is contemplated for the commercial hardware and software aspects of the Technical Data Package (TDP), and is inconsistent with the language set forth in section 4.2.1 Technical Data Package (TDP) Requirements on page 21 of

133:

“The TDP is required to be provided with Unlimited Rights or Government Purpose Rights on all non-commercial hardware and software. This will allow release of the TDP for competitive procurement of production units. More restrictive rights on the TDP will not be acceptable.”

Please clarify if the Pass/Fail requirement regarding Data Rights exempts commercial hardware and software aspects of the TDP?

Gov response: Section L and M of the RFP has been revised to reflect the Government Purpose Rights requirement identified in Section 4.2.1 of the Statement of Work.

14) M32X – Evaluation For Award – Best Value (Sep 2011), pg. 121.

Question: With regard to stepladder pricing, the example on RFP page 121 doesn’t match the actual stepladder steps in Section B for CLIN 0002. Can the Government please clarify which is correct?

Gov response: The example on RFP page 121 may not reflect the actual step ladders identified in Section

B. However, it is provided only as example of how the Government will calculate the total evaluated price.

15) Attachment 1, pg. 126.

Question: Are the Statement of Work (SOW) references for the DIDS in the Table on page 126 correct?

Gov response: They have been corrected:

DID Title SOW Reference Distribution Statement

DI-MGMT-80368A Status Report 4.1, 4.2 D

DI-NDTI-80566A Test Plan 4.1, 4.2 D

DI-QCIC-81891 Acceptance Test Report (ATR) 4.1, 4.2 D

DI-MISC-80508B Technical Reports- Study/Services 4.1, 4.2 D

DI-ADMN-81505 Report, Record of Meeting/Minutes 4.1, 4.2 D

DI-ADMN-81373 Presentation Materials 4.1, 4.2 D

DI-NDTI-81585A Reliability Test Plan 4.1 D

DI-IPSC-81434A Interface Requirements Specification

(IRS)

4.1 D

DI-IPSC-81436A Interface Design Description (IDD) 4.1 D

DI-CMAN-80639C Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) 4.2 D

DI-ILSS-80872 Training Materials 4.1 D

DI-SESS-80776A Technical Data Package 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3

D

DI-CMAN-80858B Contractor's Configuration Management Plan

4.2.4 D

DI-QCIC-81794 Quality Assurance Program Plan 7.0 D

SECTION D - PACKAGING AND MARKING

The following have been deleted:

HQ D-2-0004 IDENTIFICATION MARKING OF PARTS (NAVSEA)

(NOV 1996)

SEP 2011

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been modified:

HQ J-2-0002 CONTRACT LANGUAGE FOR SECTION J

The following document(s), exhibit(s), and other attachment(s) form a part of this contract:

Contract Data Requirements List, DD Form 1423 – Exhibits A , To be included in individual task/delivery orders

EMATT Data Item Description (DID) listing Attachment 1

Contract Security Classification Specification, DD Form 254 – Attachment 2

Prime Item Product Performance Specification (PIPS) for the MK 39 Mod 2-TER EMATT Attachment 3

The PIPS will be made available to Joint Certification Program (JCP) registered contractors via the FEDBIZOPS website.

Cost Summary Sheet Attachment 4

Technical Data Package (TDP) Material Request Form – Attachment 5

TDP selection worksheet – Attachment 6

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

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 FIVE (5) 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 THREE (3) pages.

(c) The descriptions called for under paragraphs (a) and (b) above are not subject to the technical proposal page limitation of the solicitation.

L34X TECHNICAL PROPOSAL - COMPLEX ITEM (FEB 2012)

Organization. The technical proposal shall include information and documentation in sufficient detail to clearly identify the offer's overall merit, divided in the following sections, in the order listed.

(1) Technical Capability

(2) Past Performance

(3) Pass/Fail Requirements

(1) TECHNICAL CAPABILITY FACTOR:

The required content of the Technical Volume is identified below. The order of presentation in the Offeror’s proposal volume shall correspond to the ordering of the appropriate subparagraphs discussed below. The Offeror may, however, expand on or include text in addition to the required contents provided if it is relevant and demonstrates a capability that is beneficial to the selection of a qualified source.

This section shall thoroughly demonstrate a technical understanding of the requirement and shall include sufficient details to allow an assessment of the Offeror's ability to meet the requirements of the RFP.

(i) Design Approach Sub factor:

This section shall thoroughly demonstrate the following:

a) The Offeror’s proposed design meets the requirements contained in the MK39 EMATT Mod 2 with True

Echo Repeat Performance Specification, Dwg. 7490774.

b) The Offeror's capability to accept system performance responsibility and to apply reserve resources to resolve unanticipated problems throughout the contract period.

c) The Offeror's proposed verification methods and scope of testing can be successfully accomplished with contractor and Government provided test assets.

d) The Offeror’s proposed test and production (prototype or other preproduction efforts as applicable) facility(s) (to include tank test facilities, ranges, and flight test assets) and processes for the capability to produce the MK39 EMATT Mod 2 with True Echo Repeat.

e) The Offeror’s ability to meet or exceed performance, fabrication and test requirements based upon the program schedule.

(ii) Manufacturing Capability and Proposed Processes Sub factor:

a) The Offeror's proposed Product Assurance Program and quality system to ensure the implementation of the requirements of the Performance Specification. The Offeror's proposed program shall include how quality assurance personnel are integrated into the manufacturing processes.

b) The Offeror's proposed capabilities and the capacities of the facility or facilities to be used for the production of MK39 Mod 2 EMATT with True Echo Repeat vehicles to be delivered under this contract.

This shall include internal and external facilities. The Offeror shall include processes and process capabilities to support timely deliveries of MK 39 Mod 2 EMATT with True Echo Repeat vehicles in the quantities required by the contract as well as process scalability. The Offeror shall include controls over the work in progress, including operations performed by major subcontractors and vendors to ensure that orderly implementation of changes can occur without significant rework, scrap, or waiver actions.

(iii) Program Management Sub factor:

a) Identify a Senior Technical Representative (STR). Include a resume for the STR. Address the STR’s authority, ability to independently commit company resources to perform under the contract, and the STR’s line of communication to senior company management. Describe the STR’s previous experience managing similar efforts. The STR must designated as a Key Personnel.

b) The Offeror's capability to effectively manage their proposed program, control schedule and technical risk, establish and maintain both internal and external interface controls, provide orderly change implementation, and provide Government insight into the program progress and technical issues through formal data submittals, periodic program reviews and informal technical interchange.

c) The Offeror's Personnel Mix that will be made available for the MK 39 EMATT Mod 2 with True Echo

Repeat. The Personnel Mix utilized shall have the necessary professional and technical skills required to successfully accomplish the development, test and support of the MK39 EMATT System.

(iv) Small Business Participation Sub factor

Note that the Small Business Participation Factor is separate from the Small Business Subcontracting Plan requirement in paragraph 3.0(a)(1) of this clause.

(a) Small Business Participation (**DO NOT INCLUDE ANY COST INFORMATION IN THIS

SECTION**)

(i) Small Businesses as it relates to this clause include the following:

- Small Business Concerns

- Small Disadvantaged Business Concerns (including Historically Black Colleges and

Universities and Minority Institutions)

- Women-Owned Small Business Concerns

- HUBZone Small Business Concerns

- Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns

- Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns

(ii) The North American Industry Classification (NAICS) code applicable to the requirements contained within this solicitation is 541330 and the Size Standard is $35.5M.

(iii) Offerors shall propose a Small Business Participation percentage for this task order. Small

Business Offerors shall indicate the percentage of work performed by themselves, as well as by any Small Business Subcontractors, in calculating the proposed Small Business Participation percentage. The Small Business Participation percentage shall be calculated as follows:

Participation Percentage = Total Small Business Contract + Subcontract Dollars

Total Task Order Dollars

(iv) The Government’s estimated Small Business Participation percentage for this Task Order is:

10%. Offerors please note that the Government's anticipated Small Business Participation percentage is not a minimum. Offerors are encouraged to propose a Small Business Participation objective percentage as high as is practicable, as long as the percentage is supported by the related

Small Business participation approach outlined in paragraph (5) below. Please note that the

Offeror’s proposed Small Business Participation percentage for this task order shall be incorporated into the Task Order upon award.

(v) Offerors shall provide an approach for how it intends to meet the Small Business participation percentage. Offerors shall provide a rationale that demonstrates the tasks assigned to the selected

Small Businesses are meaningful to the overall success of this task order. Small Business Offerors shall include work performed as the prime contractor as well as any work performed by Small

Business subcontractors. All Offerors shall explain the reasons for and advantages of selecting particular Small Business subcontractors.

(2) PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR:

The Offeror shall provide three past performance references for contracts and subcontracts that reflect recent relevant experience performed within the last three years that demonstrate the ability to handle the scope of the

Statement of Work and Performance Specification. Discuss how the references provided are relevant and comparable to the production and manufacture of systems with similar size, scope, and complexity as the MK 39

Mod 2 EMATT with True Echo Repeat. Include:

Contract/Task Order number

Contract/Task Order type

Program Name

Total Contract/Task Order dollar value

Short description of work performed

Names and valid telephone numbers for the:

o Procuring Contract Officer (PCO) o Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) o Program Manager o Other Government or Industry Point of Contact that is familiar with the performance of the contract/task order

Provide similar past performance data for subcontractors performing more than 25% of the level of effort.

Past performance information shall not exceed overall six(6) pages for the Prime and overall six(6) pages for any subcontractor providing more than 25% of the work. These pages will not be counted against the proposal page count.

The Government may also use other information, such as CPARs data available from Government sources, to evaluate an offeror’s past performance. The Government reserves the right to limit or expand the number of references it decides to contact, and contract references other than those provided by the offeror.

(3) Pass/Fail Requirements:

a. The Offeror shall submit the following information with its proposal which will be evaluated as a pass or fail in relation to the solicitation requirements. The information provided in this section is excluded from the page count limit identified in paragraph 2.0(c).

(1) The TDP FOR THE MOD 2 EMATT WITH TRUE ECHO REPEAT is required to be provided with no less than Government Purpose Rights on all non-commercial hardware and software.

(a) Content of Cost Proposal. Complete the attached Cost Summary Sheet, and include it in your cost proposal.

Trace cost data from the supporting data and calculations to the Cost Summary Sheet. Supply the most currently available rates for direct labor, overhead, general and administrative expense, and any other factors used in developing the proposal. Submit any information reasonably required to explain the estimating process, including:

(1) The judgmental factors applied and the mathematical or other methods used in the estimate, and

(2) Any contingencies used in the cost proposal.

(3) A copy or pertinent excerpts from your personnel policies pertaining to compensation plan(s) for professional employees including performance appraisal and salary administration procedures, salary grades and ranges, summary of basic benefit programs and relocation policies (See 52.222-46, Evaluation of

Compensation for Professional Employees).

(b) Labor Costs. Provide full justification for all proposed direct labor rates (unburdened). Provide the current actual hourly wage rate for each key person proposed. Identify the date as of which the actual wage rate is current.

If proposed direct labor rates vary from actual wages of key personnel, explain the basis for those rates. Trace proposed direct labor rates to proposed individual personnel. For any proposed escalation factor provide complete supporting data and rationale for out-year projections.

(c) Indirect Costs. Provide data on all indirect rates proposed including beginning and end date of the period covered by the rate and composite rate calculations, if any. Identify clearly the bases to which the rates are applied.

(d) Material. The Offeror shall provide cost and price data, and supporting explanations and rationale, in an orderly, organized, and easy-to-follow format. The summary estimates shall track to a detailed Basis of Estimates.

The Offeror shall provide detailed BOEs identifying all underlying assumptions with respect to the technical aspects of the work to be performed, the functional breakout of the efforts within the Offeror’s organization and to include any subcontracted efforts. The BOEs, in Volume II, shall include copies of pricing guides, reports from any referenced historical information and any other information the Offeror believes will assist the government in its review to adequately delineate the efforts required. Volume I information shall not include any cost information.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

HQ M-2-0015 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION FACTORS FOR

AWARD (NAVSEA) (DEC 2006)

Factor 1 - Software development approach

Description: The Government will evaluate the offeror's proposed software development approach for the system to be developed to ensure that the offeror understands the software development requirements of the solicitation and for compliance with the minimum content requirements stated in Section C.

Factor 2 - Software development experience

Description: The Government will evaluate offeror's relevant previous experience in developing software of similar size and complexity as that being acquired with this solicitation.

Factor 3 - Software development process experience

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

M32X EVALUATION FOR AWARD - BEST VALUE (SEP 2011)

(A) Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal contains the combination of those criteria offering the best overall value to the Government. This will be determined by comparing the difference in value of technical (non-cost) features of proposals with the difference in the cost to the Government. Offers will be evaluated on three evaluation factors, TECHNICAL CAPABILITY, PAST PERFORMANCE, and COST.

(1) TECHNICAL CAPABILITY FACTOR:

(i) Design Approach Sub factor:

a) The Government will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed design meets the requirements and tasking contained in the MK39 EMATT

Mod 2 with True Echo Repeat Performance Specification, Dwg. 7490774.

b) The Government will evaluate the Offeror's capability to accept system performance responsibility and to apply reserve resources to resolve unanticipated problems throughout the contract period.

c) The Government will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror's proposed verification methods and scope of testing can be successfully accomplished with contractor and Government provided test assets.

d) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed test and production

(prototype or other preproduction efforts as applicable) facility(s) (to include tank test facilities, ranges, and flight test assets) and processes for the capability to produce the MK39 EMATT Mod 2 with True Echo

Repeat.

e) The Government will evaluate the degree to which the proposal demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to meet or exceed performance, fabrication and test requirements based upon the program schedule.

(ii) Manufacturing Capability and Proposed Processes Sub factor:

a) The Government will evaluate that the Offeror's proposed Product

Assurance Program and quality system to ensure the implementation of the requirements of the Performance Specification. The Government will evaluate how quality assurance personnel are integrated into the manufacturing processes.

b) The Government shall evaluate the capabilities and the capacities of the facility or facilities to be used for the production of MK39 Mod 2 EMATT with True Echo Repeat vehicles to be delivered under this contract. This shall include internal and external facilities. The Government will evaluate processes and process capabilities to support timely deliveries of MK 39

Mod 2 EMATT with True Echo Repeat vehicles in the quantities required by the contract as well as process scalability. The Government will also evaluate controls over the work in progress, including operations performed by major subcontractors and vendors to ensure that orderly implementation of changes can occur without significant rework, scrap, or waiver actions.

(iii) Program Management Sub factor:

a) The Government will evaluate the proposed Senior Technical

Representative’s (STR) qualifications.

b) The Government will evaluate the Offeror's capability to effectively manage their proposed program, control schedule and technical risk, establish and maintain both internal and external interface controls, provide orderly change implementation, and provide Government insight into the program progress and technical issues through formal data submittals, periodic program reviews and informal technical interchange

c) The Government will evaluate the Offeror's personnel mix that will be made available for the MK 39 EMATT Mod 2 with True Echo Repeat.

The personnel mix utilized shall have the necessary professional and technical skills required to successfully accomplish the development, test and support of the MK39 EMATT System.

(iv) Small Business Participation Factor.

a) The Government will evaluate the proposed Small Business participation approach in conjunction with the proposed Small Business participation percentage. The proposed Small Business participation percentage must be supported by the proposed Small Business participation approach. Failure to support a proposed Small Business participation percentage will result in a lower rating than a Small Business participation percentage that is supported.

(2) PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR:

Past performance is a measure of the degree to which the Offeror satisfied its customers in the past and complied with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. The Government may contact all or some of each Offeror’s customers to ask whether or not the customer believes: (1) that the Offeror is capable, efficient and effective; (2) that the Offeror’s performance conformed to the terms and conditions of its contract; (3) that the Offeror was reasonable and cooperative during performance; (4) that the Offeror was committed to customer satisfaction; (5) that the

Offeror was able to hire and retain qualified personnel; (6) if given a chance, would the customer select the same or a different Contractor. The Government may consider past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the Offeror, including Federal, State, and local Government agencies, Better Business Bureaus, published media and electronic databases. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

(3) Pass/Fail Requirements: Offers will be evaluated based on a Pass/Fail rating of the requirements listed below. Offers must receive a Pass rating under each Pass/Fail requirement to be eligible for award. The Pass/Fail rating criteria is as follows:

EVALUATION

FACTOR

PASS FAIL

Data Rights The TDP is provided with at least Government Purpose

Rights on all non-commercial hardware and software.

The TDP is provided with less than

Government Purpose Rights on all non-commercial hardware and software.

(4) COST FACTOR

Technical Capability is significantly more important than Cost/Price. Although Cost/Price is the less important evaluation factor, it is important and will be seriously considered. The degree of its importance will increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to Technical

Capability, or when it is so significantly high as to diminish the value of the technical superiority to the Government.

The Government will evaluate proposed costs by performing a cost realism analysis as described in FAR 15.404-1(d). 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) what the Government should realistically expect to pay for the Offeror’s performance should the Offeror receive the award. The Government will consider both price reasonableness and cost realism of the Offeror’s proposal. The quality of the cost 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.

The evaluated cost will include options; however, the evaluation of options does not in any way obligate the Government to exercise any option.

The Cost Proposal evaluation will be based on compliance with the RFP, an analysis of realism, completeness of the cost data, traceability of the cost to the Offeror’s technical capability data and the proposed allocation of man-hours, materials and labor mix. The Offeror’s proposed costs will be verified against the proposed technical approach and any inconsistencies and discrepancies may result in cost adjustments. Pertinent cost information including, but not limited to, 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 most probable estimated cost to be incurred in the performance of the contract

Price will be evaluated as follows:

For those contract line items (CLINs) with a single quantity, multiply the stated quantity by the unit price to derive the total line amount. The following is an example:

ITEM SUPPLIES/SERVICES QTY UNIT U/PRICE AMOUNT

0001 MK39 Mod 2 w/TER EMATT Targets

First Article Test

50 EA $1,000.00 $50,000.00

The total line item amount for line item 0001 is $50,000.00.

The Government will evaluate offers for awards by adding the “average price” for each

Stepladder CLIN Table. The total amount will result in the Total Evaluated Price. The

“Average Price” Formula will add the unit price for all the targets in each Table and multiply the total added amount by “midpoint quantity” under each column. The following is an example of how the average price formula is calculated for CLIN 002.

ITEM SUPPLIES/SERVICES QTY

100-300

QTY

301-600

QTY

601-900

QTY

900-1000

0002 MK39 Mod 2 w/TER EMATT Targets $6,000.00 $5,000.00 $4,000.00 $3,000.00

$6,000 x 200 =$1,200,000

$5,000 x 400 =$2,000,000

$4,000 x 800 =$3,200,000

$3,000 x 950 =$2,850,000

Total Evaluated Price CLIN 0002: 9,250,000

Add all single quantity line item amounts to the total evaluated price for each production year, and the total evaluated price for the Cost Plus Fixed Fee CLINs to arrive at the Total

Evaluated Price for the contract.

(B) RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

The following table indicates all significant factors and significant subfactors that will be considered in awarding the Task Order.

Factors Subfactors

1. Technical Capability A. Design Approach

B. Manufacturing Capability C. Program Management D. Small Business Participation

2. Past Performance (None)

3. Cost (None)

The Technical Capability subfactors are listed in descending order of importance.

The Factors are weighted as follows: Technical Capability and Past Performance are weighted equally.

All evaluation factors other than Cost (Technical Capability, and Past Performance), when combined, are significantly more important than Cost. As competing proposals approach Technical Capability/Past Performance equality, Cost will increase in importance.

(End of Summary of Changes)