N6833518R0035_U0001.docx

N6833518R0035

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:

AMENDMENT 0001

Procurement Office Point of Contact (POC)

Audrey Lewis Phone: 732-323-4701 Email: audrey.lewis@navy.mil

This section incorporates and updates all questions and answers received; updates are reflected in Section L, Section M and the Statement of Work.

The solicitation close date has not been extended due to this amendment.

Questions and Answers 08 February 2018:

Question 1 Is Windows 7 a hard requirement? Intel 7th generation processor is limited to Windows 10 support only.

a. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4012982/the-processor-is-not-supported-together-with-the-windows-version-that

Answer to Question 1: All planned fielding of new Mission Planning software is expected to be on Windows 10 and hence Windows 7 would have been great to have for backwards compatibility but is indeed NOT a hard requirement.

Question 2 Can the microphone option be removed versus disabled? Solicitation states "disabled in BIOS".

Answer to Question 2: Yes, either disabling or removing is acceptable.

Question 3 Processor PassMark requirement seems low. Please confirm CPU mark of 5000 is correct.

Answer to Question 3: The requirement is only a minimum. Any CPU above this level is fine.

Question 4 GPU PassMark requirement seems high for a rugged laptop solution (due to excessive heat produced by the GPU). Please confirm if PassMark of 5000 is correct. This requirement is typically found on desktop solutions.

Answer to Question 4: The PassMark score of 5000 is achievable with the latest GPUs. But, after further research we have to agree on the heat component is a problem and not GPU meant for a laptop will achieve this level or performance. Hence, the proper PassMark score would be above 1500.

Question 5 Appendix B: BIOS Update

a. The following options are not available on the device we plan to propose. Do you foresee this to be an issue?

i. TPM State

ii. PCI SCSI

Answer to Question 5: It is acceptable to not have the exact TPM State setting in the BIOS as long as there is a way to enable and disable the TPM in the BIOS.

The PCI SCSI reference in the BIOS section only refers to the boot order. Since we have no devices that would boot the OS from a PCI SCSI device, the setting is not mandatory.

Question 6 When are bid samples due? The solicitation states "TBD".

Answer to Question 6: The bid samples are due on 01 March 2018, 4PM Eastern Standard Time using the earliest delivery shipment possible.

Question 7 Please provide details of CLIN 0007 requirement.

Answer to Question 7: CLIN 0007 has two Contract Data Requirement Lists (CDRLs). Please see the Statement of Work Section 2.3 for the Provisioning Technical Documentation for CDRL A001 and please see the Statement of Work Section 2.6 for the Hardware Availability Data for CDRL A002. Please note that this CLIN is Not Separately Priced.

Question 8 “The BIOS battery must be easily accessible and removable without voiding the system warranty to support system declassification."

a. We assume that the Government is referring to the CMOS battery. Is our interpretation correct?

Answer to Question 8: Yes, correct.

Question 9 Once the system board is exposed, the Lithium coin battery is easily accessible and removable. However, getting the system board completely exposed is not. As the Government is well aware, the notebook the Government requires must have a certain degree of ruggedization. As such, the system board must be enclosed in some structure for its protection. To avoid confusion, would the Government revise the requirement to read:

"The CMOS battery must be easily accessible and removable from its system board without voiding the system warranty to support system declassification."

Answer to Question 9: Yes, the “easily accessible” is a subjective call. We can accept with a minor extra caveat: “The CMOS battery must be accessible and removable from its system without voiding the system warranty to support system declassification. Ease of this accessibility and removal will be considered as one of many factors by the government when making a product selection.”

Question 10 The Government is willing to accept a "USB-attached or Integrated Smart Card Reader". At the same time, the Government mandates an integrated DVD+/-R/RW & Blu-Ray drive. If a vendor chooses to propose a notebook computer with an integrated Smart Card Reader but USB-attached optical drive, would it be acceptable to the Government?

Answer to Question 10: The vendor can submit that configuration and it will be evaluated. Typically, the fleet does not like the larger peripheral devices connected as external components and this would be evaluated during the human factors analysis.

Question 11 A number of very competitive notebooks would be able to enter the competition if the Government would accept a USB-attached PCMCIA slot and RS-232 serial port.

Answer to Question 11: The answer is No. The problem is twofold. With this and other questions are that this laptop gets fielded to the Navy and Marines. The fleet does not want external cables as they get lost and forgotten yielding them not able to fulfill their mission. Therefore, we try to reduce connected external devices. In this case, after testing, our data transfer device has shown it only functions if the PCMCIA slot is internal.

Question 12 There does not appear to be an objective method to evaluate the "Human Factors." While we understand that it is difficult to develop an objective basis for this type of evaluation, we urge the Government to narrow it to the extent possible to avoid complications after contract award.

Answer to Question 12: As part of the evaluation, we have actual military personnel involved in the evaluation. We could not describe a quantifiable method for this evaluation. Ergonomics will not be a factor since laptops can be positioned in a variety of situations. The following are a list of factors to be evaluated:

a. Clarity - How clear is the screen.

b. How legible are graphics and symbols

c. Monitor brightness controls

d. Accessibility for ports

e. Touchpad/mouse usability/responsiveness

f. Keyboard usability/responsiveness

g. Externally connected components

Question 13 The Government states that the drop test will be "similar to the MIL-STD-810 standardization but only from a height of 6 inches …" Could the Government please advise vendors onto what type of floor surface will the notebook be dropped? Concrete? Hardwood? Or Carpeted?

Answer to Question 13: Concrete.

Question 14 Could the Government please disclose the version number of the Passmark Performance Test software that was used to collect the scores listed in the referenced paragraph?

Answer to Question 14: Version 9.0

Question 15 The Government requires PCMCIA Slot eject buttons be able to "eject cards to an easily retrievable distance (minimum of 1 inch chassis clearance desired)". Could the Government please disclose if the card the Government used to conduct the 1-inch clearance test is situated completely inside the slot when it is inserted? Or is it protruding from the slot? If so, how far out does it protrude?

Answer to Question 15: When inserted, the PCMCIA card should be flush with the chassis and not protrude at all. Upon pressing the release button, a clearance of 0.5” from the insertion point would be acceptable. The main factor here is to ensure that a hand can easily pull out the card.

Question 16 Also requiring 4 USB Slots on the unit is a challenge because most vendors have transitioned to USB-c and don’t contain 4 USB slots.

Answer to Question 16: Standard USB slots are required based on peripherals in the fleet that require this type of connection.

Question 17 Serial (RS232) is also a challenge in notebooks

Answer to Question 17: Both PCMCIA and serial ports are challenging but both are required because of peripherals in the fleet that require this type of connection.

Question 18 Can there be a better defining description on what "semi-rugged" entails? (Drop test, other qualifications, etc.)

Answer to Question 18: The “semi-rugged” requirement is defined in MIL-STD-810.

Questions and Answers 14 February 2018:

Question 1 Please confirm if the high-end mobile laptops need to be TAA compliant?

Answer to Question 1: Yes.

Question 2 Please provide the make and model of the High-End laptop that was awarded on the past iteration of this contract?

Answer to Question 2: Getac s400.

Question 3 In the SOW-JMPS Appendix A, Ports, you request "(1) PCMCIA Slot". PCMCIA slots have been largely discontinued by all tier one manufactures and have moved to the more common ExpressCard Slots. The benefits of the ExpressCards include a smaller and faster PC card solution and is suitable for portable and desktop systems. Please confirm if you will accept an ExpressCard Slot instead of a PCMIA Slot? If not, would you consider a USB to PCMIA card reader adapter?

Answer to Question 3: Yes, an internal PCMCIA slot is required as using the USB to PCMCIA adapter has failed some tests.

Question 4 In the SOW-JMPS Appendix A, Ports, you request "(1) VGA Port. Most Tier one manufactures have moved away from offering a VGA port on their high-end mobile computer systems. Does a Mini -Display Port to VGA dongle meet this requirement?

Answer to Question 4: Yes, we need the internal VGA as we try to limit the number of extra cables supplied to the fleet.

Question 5 In the SOW-JMPS Appendix A, Ports, you request "(1) RS-232 Serial Port. RS-232 is a legacy port and all Tier one manufactures have moved away from offering them on their laptops. Would you consider a USB to Seral Port adapter to meet this requirement?

Answer to Question 5: The internal serial port is also required. We try to limit the number of extra cables supplied to the fleet.

Question 6 In the SOW-JMPS Appendix A, Optical Drive, "You request an integrated CD/DVD/BD Drive". Most Tier one manufactures have moved away from an integrated optical drive. Will a USB external portable drive meet this requirement?

Answer to Question 6: We need the internal optical drive. We try to limit the number of extra cables supplied to the fleet.

Question 7

In the SOW-JMPS Appendix A, Display, the Government requests a "14" Widescreen with a minimum resolution of 1920 X 1080 and Matte, Anti-glare surface." Please confirm that 14" is a minimum size and that the Government will consider a Laptops that have a 15.6" screen as long as it is 1920 X 1080 and Matte, Anti-glare surface?

Answer to Question 7: Yes, above 14" is fine.

Question 8 On Page 4 of the solicitation, Item NO #003, the government requests Docking stations. Please provide the required specifications for this docking station? For example, how many monitors does it have to support, Ports etc.

Answer to Question 8: The docking station should support the same port and display types and quantities as the laptop itself.

Question 9 In the SOW-JMPS, Section 2.1.1.2, you state "All hardware components must be compatible with Microsoft Windows 7 and Microsoft Windows 10". Please note that Intel will be discontinuing shipments of the 6th Generation processors in September, 2018. The 6th Gen processors are the last processors that will support Windows 7. Intel 7th and 8th Gen processors do not support Windows 7. Furthermore, the DOD has issued a directive that DOD agencies migrate to Windows 10 by March, 31st 2018. Will the government consider waving this requirement for year Two? By year Two of this contract, it will be extremely difficult and expensive sourcing 6th gen processors and the only processors available will be either 7th or 8th gen processors that will only support Windows 10.

Answer to Question 9: Only Windows 10 support is needed.

Question 10 In the SOW-JMPS, Section 2.6, you state that "The vendor shall guarantee availability of the selected model number (including subcomponents specified within the TDBD) through December 31, 2020". All Tier One manufactures generally update model numbers each year. For example, in 2017 Dell Manufactured the Precision 7510 High-End and in 2018, they plan on discontinuing it and transiting to the new 7520. The new model will be very similar but will support the newer Intel processors. Please confirm that the government will allow model changes in the above mentioned fashion as long as the new model is a continuation/transition from the old model?

Answer to Question 10: Yes, we need this length of support as our assets are deployed to the fleet and need support for this minimum amount of time.

Question 11 On Page 4 of the solicitation, Item NO #003, Docking Stations and 004 Carrying Cases. Does the government require the Docking Stations and Carrying Cases to be from the same manufacture as the laptops? Or can they be from other manufactures? For example, the Carrying Case can from Tagus or another carrying case manufacture?

Answer to Question 11: Different manufacturers are fine.

Question 12 Please confirm if these High-End laptops will be used in the United Sates? If not, can you please provide the country names where these laptops will be used?

Answer to Question 12: The laptops will be used in several different countries. They include but are not limited to Japan, Kuwait, Italy, Spain, Finland, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Malaysia, Denmark, and Australia.

Question 13 Please confirm when the vendor needs to provide the TDBD (Top Down Breakdown)? Does it have to be provided with the vendor's proposal or can it be provided at a later date before the award of a contact?

Answer to Question 13: The TDBD should be provided with the evaluation unit.

Questions and Answers 20 February 2018:

Is "NVIDIA Graphics Card" a hard requirement? AMD Graphics Cards are nearly identical to Nvidia. Does the government prefer a "workstation" type graphics card or a "gaming" type graphics card? (Ex: Nvidia Quadro vs Nvidia GeForce).

Answer to Question 1: Question 4 from the first set of responses should have already answered this GPU question about performance. See below.

***4. GPU PassMark requirement seems high for a rugged laptop solution (due to excessive heat produced by the GPU). Please confirm if PassMark of 5000 is correct. This requirement is typically found on desktop solutions.

The PassMark score of 5000 is achievable with the latest GPUs. But, after further research we have to agree on the heat component is a problem and not GPU meant for a laptop will achieve this level or performance. Hence, the proper PassMark score would be above 1500.***

Question 2 February 8 Q&A

10. The Government is willing to accept a "USB-attached or Integrated Smart Card Reader". At the same time, the Government mandates an integrated DVD+/-R/RW & Blu-Ray drive. If a vendor chooses to propose a notebook computer with an integrated Smart Card Reader but USB-attached optical drive, would it be acceptable to the Government?

The vendor can submit that configuration and it will be evaluated. Typically, the fleet does not like the larger peripheral devices connected as external components and this would be evaluated during the human factors analysis

February 14 Q&A

6. In the SOW-JMPS Appendix A, Optical Drive, "You request an integrated CD/DVD/BD Drive". Most Tier one manufactures have moved away from an integrated optical drive. Will a USB external portable drive meet this requirement?

We need the internal optical drive. We try to limit the number of extra cables supplied to the fleet.

Answer to Question 2: To clarify, the reason an external optical drive is not desired, but could be evaluated is that the optical drive is larger and more prone to damage and failure in the fleet. Further, the optical hard drive has spinning components while the card reader does not. Since fleet asset are constantly moved around, any configuration that could induce more failures is obviously less desirable. So, an external optical drive can be submitted but will be taken into account as a definite issue with human factors and reliability.

Questions and Answers 22 February 2018:

In Section 4.1 – Proposal Submission of the RFP document, the Government indicates that offerors are to submit both a hard copy and electronic copy of their proposal. However, in Section 4.2 – Proposal Packaging, it states the following: “Each Box should identify its contents by including a packing slip detailing items contained within. Each carton should be double wrapped. Electronic submission of proposal documents is acceptable.” We would request a clarification regarding the statement “Electronic submission of proposal documents is acceptable.” Does the Government in fact require a hard copy submission of the proposal or is just an electronic submission acceptable?

Answer to Question 1: The Government requires a hard copy submission of the proposal. Section 4.2 is hereby amended.

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been added by full text:

SECTION J

Section J - List of Documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

The following have been modified:

SECTION L

Instruction to Offerors

SECTION L

PART A GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

1. GENERAL

The Offeror is required to submit sufficient information to enable Government personnel to fully ascertain capabilities of the Offeror to perform the requirements. The proposal must be sufficient in detail and scope to permit evaluation and provide the evaluators a clear understanding of the Offeror’s capability to meet the defined elements as required by the solicitation. All proposals must clearly and convincingly demonstrate that the Offeror has a thorough understanding of the requirements, and is able, willing and competent to devote the resources necessary to meet the requirements. Offeror must respond to all requirements of the solicitation and not alter or rearrange the solicitation. The Offeror has the burden of proof to demonstrate compliance with all the evaluation factors identified in this solicitation. Alternate proposals are NOT accepted.

In presenting material in the proposal, the Offeror is advised that quality of information is more important than quantity. Clarity, brevity, and logical organization should be emphasized during proposal preparation. The Offeror is responsible to present enough information to allow the Government to evaluate the proposed work effort, support, and approach, as well as the price proposal without opening discussions. Statements that the prospective Offeror understands, or can and/or will comply with, the specifications, and paraphrasing the requirements or parts thereof without supporting information are considered inadequate by the Government, and may render a rating of unacceptable.

There is no need to repeat information in more than one volume if an overlap exists; the detailed information must be included in the most logical place and summarized and referenced in other areas. Unnecessarily elaborate brochures or other presentation materials beyond that sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal is neither necessary nor desired.

The Offeror is expected to comply with all requirements of the solicitation. The Government advises the Offeror that taking exception or deviating from any term or condition of the solicitation may make an offer unacceptable, and the proposal unawardable, unless the solicitation expressly authorizes such an exception or deviation with regard to that specific term or condition.

Throughout these instructions, a “principal subcontractor” is defined as a subcontractor who provides at least 10% of the proposed total price/cost (excluding the Offeror’s profit/fee), for the contract. “Team member” is defined as those entities that make up a joint venture or any other partnership or teaming arrangement formed for the purpose of responding to this solicitation. “Critical team member” is defined as those entities of the Offeror that perform a critical function in the performance of the resulting contract, whether it is technical or financial, and/or that have important roles in any high or medium risk areas identified in the Offeror’s proposal.

Questions: Offerors may submit questions requesting clarification of solicitation requirements by emailing the contract specialist at Audrey.lewis@navy.mil. It is required that all questions be received within 10 calendar days of the date this solicitation is issued.

1. PROPOSAL CONTENT AND VOLUMES

Written proposals must be formatted using a Times New Roman 12 pt normal font (no reduction permitted), single-spaced with 1-inch margins all around, and formatted for standard 8.5 x 11 inch paper. All pages should be numbered with section and page numbers. When foldout pages are used they must not exceed 11 x 17 inches and will be counted as 1 page. Drawings may be provided separately and may be any size but should be folded to approximately 8.5 x 11 inch standard size and will count as 1 page. Graphs shall be presented in no smaller than a 10 pt font and should contain a grid, which allows values to be read directly from the graph to the same accuracy that a 10 x 10 to the ½ inch grid provides. Graphic resolution should be consistent with the purpose of the data presented.

Each volume of the proposal shall be submitted as one original and additional copies as specified in Part B Specific Instructions below. Page limitations for each volume if any, are also specified. Title and table of contents pages do not count towards page limitations. Proposal pages beyond the specified maximum limit will not be reviewed as part of the evaluation.

Information submitted as an Annex to the proposal includes manuals, specifications, procedures and policies that exist as an official document of the company or facility. The Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan is also an authorized Annex. Annexes do not have page limitations.

The Offeror must present its proposal information in a manner that facilitates a one for one comparison between the information presented and Section L proposal instructions. Proposal information must be structured such that its paragraph numbers/letters correspond to the proposal instructions paragraph numbers/letters, although the Offeror may add lower tier sub paragraphs.

Each proposal must contain the following information:

-(2) Source Selection JMPS Laptop Samples

-Written Proposal

1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION AND PACKAGING

4.1 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

All Proposals shall be UNCLASSIFIED. Proposals must be valid for 180 days from solicitation closing.

Clearly mark all packages with the solicitation number. The submission date of the original proposal shall be no later than the date and time specified in Block 08 of Standard Form 1449 of the Solicitation.

The Offeror shall submit proposals via United States Postal Service or through a commercial carrier using the address provided below. Proposals shall also be submitted electronically following the directions in Section 2.0 via email to Audrey.Lewis@navy.mil. Hand carried proposals are not acceptable.

Naval Air Systems Command Code: Audrey Lewis, AIR 2.5.2.6.2.3 Solicitation Number: N68335-18-R-0035 Hwy 547, Bldg 120, Room 207 Joint Base MDL, NJ 08733

4.2 Proposal Packaging

Each box should identify its contents by including a packing slip detailing items contained within. Each carton should be double wrapped. The outside of the carton should be plain and the inside carton shall be stamped or marked ― “For Official Use Only”; and “Source Selection Information – See FAR-2.101 and 3.104”, for the intended recipient as identified in 4.1 (Proposal Submission). The original set of proposals should be marked for NAVAIR Audrey Lewis, AIR-2.5.2.6.2.3 identified in section 4.1 (Proposal Submission).

Note: Any documents which contain price data shall remain separate from the non-price proposal information.

5.0 ELECTRONIC PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

5.1 Electronic Submission of Proposal

This section is intended to provide information to the Offeror on the electronic format and application software to be used for submitting proposals. Use of the software and procedures described in this section will reduce the amount of time and effort needed to receive and install proposals onto the electronic evaluation system, and will ensure that the proposals received are suitable for reading electronically.

5.1.1 Operating System and Applications

The proposals will be accessed utilizing the Microsoft Windows 7 Operating System. Proposal information shall be submitted using the following applications: Microsoft Word 2010, Microsoft Excel 2010, or as a fully searchable Portable Document Format (.pdf) file. Use of other application software for submission of proposals is prohibited.

5.1.2 Hyperlinks

Offeror’s may use hyperlinks within and among proposal volumes. However, there shall be no links from volumes that do not contain cost/price information to volumes that do contain price information.

5.1.3 Virus Free Electronic Submission

Offeror’s are responsible for ensuring that its electronic proposal is virus free. The Offeror shall certify, in its proposal cover letter, that all electronic proposal information delivered throughout the evaluation (e.g., original proposal submission, responses to evaluation notices, Final Proposal Revisions) has been or will be checked for viruses and certify that its files are/will be virus free. The Offeror should specify the software, version, and virus definition used/that will be used to check the data.

5.1.4 File Naming Conventions

Valid extensions for files using their associated applications are listed below in Table G-1 (file Extensions):

Table G-1 File Extensions

6.0 CHANGES TO SOLICITATION

For any changes and additional information to the solicitation please go to website: https://www.fbo.gov/ Search the database for the solicitation number N6833518R0035.

PART B SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS

1.0 VOLUME 1 - TECHNICAL

Note: This volume shall not contain any reference to price aspects of the offer.

The Offeror shall provide all information and data required to conduct a thorough and complete technical evaluation.

The Offeror shall address the following in its proposal:

1.1 Source Selection Bid Samples—Joint Mission Planning System (JMPS) Laptops Offerors shall submit (2) bid sample JMPS Laptops as part of its proposal. The Government must receive the two (2) bid sample laptops for testing by 4PM EST on 01 March 2018 at the following address:

Failure to provide two (2) bid sample laptops for testing to the above address on time renders the proposal unresponsive. The bid samples shall be submitted at no expense to the Government and will not be returned to the offeror.

1.1.1 Government Evaluation and Testing

As part of its technical evaluation, the Government will be performing various evaluations and testing on the submitted bid samples. The types of evaluation and testing include: Commercial Benchmark Testing, Encryption/Security Testing, Human Factors Evaluation, Durability Testing and Software Test and Evaluation. How the evaluations and testing will be performed and evaluated is found in Section M, Part B, Section 1.0, Para. 1.1.1.2 a through f.

1.2 Written Technical Proposal

1.2.1 Technical Design/System Technical Components

Offerors must propose a laptop/system that meets all of the threshold requirements identified in Attachment 1 SOW, (Appendix A- JMPS FY18 Laptop Hardware Specification). The Offeror’s shall document, in detail, how its proposed system will comply with the system requirements to show that each requirement is met. The Offeror shall provide sufficient details to support the claims in meeting each requirement.

1.2.2 Logistics and Supportability Requirements

Offerors shall describe with empirical detail its capability to provide the following timely logistics support data:

A BIOS Flash method must be available and provided for software based sanitization or the BIOS battery within the offered system must be easily accessible and removable without voiding the system warranty and the vendor shall provide an acceptable procedure for performing this removal. The vendor shall perform updates to the BIOS as detailed in Attachment 1, SOW (Appendix B- BIOS Update). When updating the BIOS, the vendor shall not set the BIOS password.

If a system component failure prevents the Government from performing the declassification process in a way that preserves the component, the vendor shall allow the Government to keep or destroy the component rather than exchange it in its current condition. Performance of the DOD declassification process shall not void the system warranty. If damage to the system is of such a nature that it requires a full replacement, the vendor shall replace the system with one of the exact same configuration. If damage to a replaceable component of the system is of such a nature that it requires a replacement of that component, the vendor shall replace the replaceable component with one of the exact same configuration.

The vendor shall provide component failure rates for the system. The vendor shall provide a Procurement Technical Document (PTD) (i.e., a top-down breakdown of the replaceable component parts) for the offered system with the evaluation unit.

The vendor shall provide a unique Stock Keeping Unit (SKU) for the offered system. The vendor shall provide a system that employs Item Unique Identification (IUID) markings in accordance with IUID policy included in Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) clause 252.211-7003.

The vendor must guarantee the availability of the exact same laptop system through 30 April 2020 in sufficient quantities so as to fill the Government procurement needs. The vendor must provide end-of-life dates for the PCMCIA Slot and ExpressCard slots for the offered system.

1.2.3 Certifications

The Offeror shall provide applicable certification documents for the following:

1. Evidence of certification for FIPS 140-2 500GB certified Solid State Drive (SSD)

2. Evidence of MIL-STD-810G Environmental Engineering Test Standard Certification

3. Certificate of Volatility for the system

1.2.4 Schedule

The offeror shall provide a detailed description of its ability to meet the schedule and timeline identified in FAR Clause 52.211-8, Time of Delivery, of the solicitation.

1.2.5 Small Business (SB) Utilization Strategy

1.2.5.1 Small Business (SB) Utilization Strategies

All Offerors (Large and Small Businesses) shall address their strategies for utilizing SB Concerns in the performance of this contract, whether as a JV, teaming arrangement or subcontractor. SB Offerors may meet this requirement using work they perform themselves. For purposes of this solicitation, the term SB Concern shall also include Small Disadvantaged Business, Women-Owned SB, HUBZone SB, Veteran-Owned SB, and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned SB. Each subcategory of SB shall be addressed. This strategy is separate from, but shall be consistent with, the SB Subcontracting Plan, if such a Plan is required. In describing its SB Utilization Strategy for this solicitation, the Offeror shall, as applicable:

- Describe its approach to identifying SB Concerns;

- Describe the extent of participation of SB Concerns on this contract, including a detailed description of the supplies and services for each SB Concern subcategory, and the complexity and variety of the work SB Concerns are to perform. For each SB Concern specifically identified in the proposal, provide the SB Concern's CAGE Code, or if the SB Concern is not registered in the Central Contractor Registration, as a minimum provide evidence of self-certification as a SB Concern. Where possible, provide documentation regarding enforceable commitments to utilize each SB Concern;

- Identify what processes have been implemented to correct past inabilities to meet proposed goals and any validated improvements;

- Provide goals, expressed as dollars and percentages of total contract values and percentages of total subcontract values for SB Concern and each subcategory of SB. Goals of subcontractors must be listed separately;

- Describe its specific efforts to ensure the resulting contract meets or exceeds proposed goals. These efforts shall include, but are not limited to sponsoring program specific outreach events and industry conferences, establishing Mentor-Protégé relationships and market research using websites such as the NAVAIR Officer of Small Business Programs website http://www.navair.navy.mil/osbp to locate small business concerns; and

- Demonstrate (Large Business only) that it’s SB Utilization Strategy is consistent with its SB Subcontracting Plan. If the Offeror is a participant in the DoD Comprehensive Subcontracting Test Program specified in DFAR 219.7, the Offeror shall describe how SB participation on this contract will contribute to its overall Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan goals.

1.2.5.2 SB Subcontracting Plans

The Large Business Offeror shall provide its SB Subcontracting Plan conforming to the requirements of FAR 19.7 and DFARS 219.7 as Annex 1. If the Offeror is a participant in the DoD Comprehensive Subcontracting Test Program specified in DFARS 219.7, the Offeror shall describe how SB participation on this contract will contribute to its overall Comprehensive Subcontracting goals. The Offeror shall describe its specific efforts to ensure the resulting contract meets or exceeds proposed goals. These efforts shall include, but are not limited to: sponsoring program specific outreach programs and industry conferences, establishing Mentor-Protégé relationships and using the NAVAIR Office of Small Business Programs website (http://www.navair.navy.mil/osbp ) to locate small business concerns.

2.0 VOLUME 2 - PRICE

2.1 Volume Content:

2.1.1This Volume shall contain the information requested below and shall include a copy of Section B with the Contract Line Item (CLIN) Unit Prices and for evaluation purposes, the Total Prices filled in (Supplies and/or Services and Prices and/or Costs) using the maximum quantities value in the solicitation and the instructions below. Section B prices shall be provided separately in one digital data copy in MS Office 2010 Excel format on CD-ROM media. Within all Excel spreadsheets, the Offeror shall use formulas and functions to the maximum extent possible and avoid using output type “value only” cells. If links are utilized, supply those referenced files. Spreadsheets shall not be protected.

2.1.2 All price/cost and price/cost supporting information shall be contained in Section B and the price/cost proposal. No price or pricing information shall be included in any other technical volume, including cover letters. Offeror is responsible for submitting sufficient information to enable the Government to fully evaluate their price/cost proposal.

2.2 Ground Rules and Assumptions:

2.2.1 As this is a competitive acquisition with adequate price competition anticipated, any price/cost documentation requested shall not be certified cost or pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.406-2. However, in the event that adequate price competition does not exist after receipt of proposals, the Government reserves the right to request additional cost or pricing data, as necessary, from both the Offeror and subcontractors and may conduct negotiations with the Offeror, pursuant to FAR Part 15.403-4, in order to ensure a reasonable and realistic price/cost. Further, the Offeror may be required to provide a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data prior to award, pursuant to FAR 15.406-2. Offeror shall acknowledge the requirement to provide additional cost or pricing information and certify the data prior to award if/when requested by the Government.

2.2.1 The Offeror shall provide sufficient information to support its price, as well as an explanation of all ground rules and assumptions, that affect the price estimates. Any apparent imbalances in the pricing, high or low proposed prices/costs as compared to historical data, or any other anomalies should be fully explained. Topics to be addressed include, but are not limited to, investments, programmatic variables (e.g., inflation/escalation, location, make/buy decisions, prime/subcontractor relationships, and business base concerns).

2.3 Price/Cost Information:

2.3.1 Reasonableness and Consistency between the Technical and Price/Cost Volumes. Demonstrate that the unit prices and the total proposed price/cost are reasonable, realistic, and commensurate with the work required by the solicitation and the technical and management approaches identified in the Technical Volume of the proposal. Show traceability with the Contractor Line Item Numbers (CLIN), the SOW, proposed effort, proposed manning levels, and the prices/costs. Refer to specific sections in the Technical Volume as needed to illustrate the consistency between the Price/Cost Volume and the Technical Volume. The Offeror shall explain any inconsistency between promised performance and price/cost, as well as any appearance of unbalanced pricing, in the proposal.

2.3.2 The Government is not soliciting any investments. However, in order for the Government to properly assess a proposed price/cost that appears low due to a corporate decision to absorb costs, e.g., lower than usual burdens or rates, the Offeror shall fully identify and explain any such investments.

3.0 Use of Government Furnished Property

3.1 Furnished Equipment, Property, Facilities, or Information will not be authorized under this contract.

SECTION M

SECTION M

M-1 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.0 GENERAL

Award of the contract resulting from this solicitation will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable, in full compliance to all other requirements set forth in the solicitation, and provides the best value within the Value Adjusted Total Evaluated Price Tradeoff (VATEP) technique. The Government will select the proposal with the lowest VATEP from among those proposals with Acceptable Technical ratings.

2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS

The Government intends to evaluate each proposal and award a contract without discussions to the responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, and has an Acceptable Technical rating and provides the lowest Total Evaluated Price. Therefore, Offerors are cautioned that their initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical and price standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and request proposal revisions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary and in the best interest of the Government. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the proposals.

All proposals will be evaluated for compliance with the terms, conditions, and requirements set forth in the solicitation. Failure to address each of the areas identified in Section L, Part B Specific Instructions, may impact the resulting evaluation ratings. Unsubstantiated statements that the prospective Offeror understands, can or will comply with the requirements, or paraphrasing the requirements or parts thereof are considered inadequate and may render a rating of “Unacceptable”.

The evaluation factor of Technical will establish the requirements of acceptability and a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” will be assigned.

Offerors are advised that in order for a proposal to be considered awardable, there must be an “Acceptable” rating in the Technical factor. During evaluation, a factor with an “Unacceptable” rating may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition.

The proposal must demonstrate to the Government’s satisfaction that the Offeror will provide a quality supply or service that will ensure the successful accomplishment of the solicitation requirements and overall program objectives. If deemed appropriate by the Government, proposal information provided for one factor may be used to assess other factors.

1. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The evaluation factors of Technical and Price are as follows:

A. Technical

· Source Selection Bid Samples

· Government Evaluation and Testing

· Technical Design/System Technical Component Inspection

· Logistics and Supportability Requirements

· Certifications

· Schedule

· Small Business Utilization Strategy B. Price

3.1 All of the elements under the evaluation factors must be addressed and will be evaluated as part of the overall Technical factor. Proposals will be evaluated using the factors of Technical and Price to establish the requirements of acceptability. The elements listed under the Technical factor are not separately weighted or separately rated. However, all of the elements must be addressed under the Technical factor and will be evaluated as part of the factors. For the Technical factor a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable will be assigned.

3.2 The proposal must demonstrate to the Government’s satisfaction that the Offeror will provide a quality supply that will ensure the successful accomplishment of the solicitation requirements and overall program objectives. If deemed appropriate by the Government, proposal information provided for one factor may be used to assess other factors. In addition, the Offeror’s technical proposal will be reviewed to determine if it is consistent with the price proposal and reflects a clear understanding of the scope of work necessary to meet the solicitation requirements.

3.3 A deficiency resulting in an “Unacceptable” technical proposal rating will result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and may be eliminated from the competition. The Government may award a contract on the basis of initial offers received, without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost and technical standpoint. However, if considered necessary by the Procuring Contracting Officer and approved by the Source Selection Authority, discussions will be conducted with only those Offeror’s determined to have a reasonable chance for award.

3.4 The Government shall evaluate the Offeror’s total price proposal for completeness. The Government may determine that an offer is rejected if the costs proposed are materially unbalanced between the line items or ranges. An offer is materially unbalanced when it is based on costs significantly understated for some items and overstated in relation to the costs for other items.

PART B: SPECIFIC INFORMATION

1. TECHNICAL

1.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine the Offeror's ability to meet the solicitation requirements. The Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Proposal with respect to its compliance with the solicitation requirements. The evaluation will also include an assessment of the following:

0. Timely submission of (2) two Source Selection Bid Sample JMPS Laptops

1.1.1.2 The Government will evaluate and test Source Selection Bid Samples to determine that the Offeror’s proposed product solution meets the requirements outlined below:

a. Commercial Benchmark Testing

Commercial benchmark testing will be performed using Passmark Performance Test software which will provide an overall score for each system. Passmark will evaluate and compare the capabilities of each candidate system for Overall PassMark score, CPU Mark, Memory Mark, Disk Mark, 2D Graphics Mark, and 3D Graphics Mark. The Minimum PassMark scores are as follows:

b. Encryption and Security Testing

Security will evaluate the system to determine if security requirements are met. The System must have full disk encryption option (Software or Hardware). The system must not contain a 802.11a/b/g/n wireless card/components or Bluetooth antenna/components. The system will be evaluated as to whether or not antenna removal is required.

If the device contains an integrated microphone, it must either be physically removed or disabled in BIOS.

c. Human Factors Evaluation

The candidate laptops will be provided to active duty field officers for physical evaluation who utilize the laptops as part of their daily work routine. The display will be evaluated for Resolution, Clarity, Legibility of symbols and letters, Brightness controls. Ports reviewed for accessibility and use of all required peripherals. Touchpad will be reviewed for configurability, pointer configurability and ease of use. System will be evaluated for Weight and Bulkiness, Robustness, and physical design. Workspace required with attached peripherals. The system will also be evaluated for ease of removal and accessibility of the internal hard drive.

The following are a list of factors to be evaluated:

· Clarity - How clear is the screen.

· How legible are graphics and symbols

· Monitor brightness controls

· Accessibility for ports

· Touchpad/mouse usability/responsiveness

· Keyboard usability/responsiveness

· Externally connected components

d. Durability Testing

The system will be test to see whether or not it will withstand a drop test from a height of 6 inches. The drop test will be similar to the MIL-STD-810 standardization but only from a height of 6 inches and only for a total of 8 drops (one for each corner and one for each edge). The laptop will also undergo a torsion test to measure the durability against repetitive twist and flex forces. For the screen evaluation, the laptop will have a human force of 5 points applied to the top corner of the screen while holding the center of the screen stable. The screen should not incur damage nor be displaced over 0.75 inches. All systems will be in off status prior to testing.

e. Software Test and Evaluation

Government off the Shelf (GOTS) and Commercial off the Shelf (COTS) software will be installed on the candidate systems to perform an assessment of performance based on critical functions of the software. The assessments are conducted predominantly in a laboratory environment with conditioned spaces using stable shore power. Tests include extensive data loading and downloading data to external devices. The candidate system will be evaluated for compatibility with future software configurations. Windows 7 and Windows 10 will be tested on the machine to evaluate the ability to install the OS software, availability of device drivers, and basic system operation.

0. The evaluation of the Offeror’s Technical Design/System Technical Components will be based on the information presented in the Offeror’s written technical proposal that demonstrates that its product solution meets the minimum threshold requirements outlined in Attachment 1 SOW (Appendix A- JMPS FY18 Laptop Hardware Specification) and a Value Adjusted Total Evaluated Price (VATEP) decrement will be computed for Offeror’s who propose a Level 2 or Level 3 SDD. Calculation of the applicable Total Evaluated Price (TEP) adjustments are described as follows:

Offerors will receive a decrement to its Total Proposed Price (TPP) for each Level higher SDD above the Level 1 threshold, up to the objective value of Level 3, for a maximum decrement of $1,000 per unit.

1.1.3 The evaluation of the Offeror’s proposed Logistics and Supportability Requirements will be based on the information present in the Offeror’s written proposal that demonstrates that it has the technical capability and understanding to meet the logistics and supportability requirements outlined in Section L, Part B, Section 1.0, Volume 1, 1.2.2.

1.1.4 The proposals shall be evaluated to determine that the required certifications are provided.

1.1.5 The proposal shall be evaluated to determine that the Offeror’s ability and proposed delivery schedule meets the schedule provided in FAR Clause 52.211-8, Time of Delivery, of the solicitation.

1.1.6 The Offeror’s strategy for utilizing Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Women-Owned Small Business, HUB Zone Small Businesses, Veteran-Owned Small Business, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business concerns and Historically Black Colleges/Universities and Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI) as well as its consistency with the proposed Small Business Subcontracting Plan (if applicable) will be evaluated. Such evaluations will focus on the extent of participation by small business concerns and the methods and effectiveness of the Offeror in finding, encouraging, and commitment to the use of these small business concerns in its business approach.

2.0 PRICE

The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the VATEP. The VATEP will be calculated using prices from the Offeror’s proposed pricing, as adjusted for the Level SDD Threshold Adjustments. Even though all prices proposed will be evaluated, not all proposed prices will be used in the TEP calculations, just CLIN 0001 will be utilized in the TEP calculations, if warranted.

The Government will calculate the TPP by adding the total…