Attachment 17 TACP CASS SW 145 Section M 20120628 DRAFT.pdf

FA8307-12-R-0014 Section M

27 June 2012

FA8307-12-R-0014

Attachment 17

Tactical Air Control Party Modernization (TACP-M)

Close Air Support System (CASS)

Software Version 1.4.5

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

(SECTION M)

Electronic Systems Center

Airborne Network Division (ESC/HNA)

Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts 01731

DRAFT

This is a draft release intended to solicit comments from potential offerors and is subject to change.

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

A. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 215, Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, 4 March 2011, Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Part 5315, and AFFARS Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5315.3, 4 May 2011. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government. Best value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirements. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that the offeror will best meet or exceed the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical superiority and/or overall proposed approach and/or superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost differences. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the offerors’ proposals against the evaluation factors and subfactors (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

B. NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the Tactical Air Control Party Close Air Support System (TACP CASS) Software v1.4.5. However, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all, as determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

C. REJECTION OF UNREALISTIC OFFERS

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions, or is unrealistically low or high in cost, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or an inherent failure to understand/comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

D. CORRECTION POTENTIAL OF PROPOSALS

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any deficiency or uncertainty. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect or aspects of an offeror’s proposal not meeting the http://farsite.hill.af.mil/ http://farsite.hill.af.mil/

Government’s requirements is/are not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

E. AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

The Government may evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors

(except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The

Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines them to be necessary.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

A. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS AND THEIR RELATIVE ORDER

OF IMPORTANCE

The Government will award a contract to the offeror whose proposal is deemed most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described in the subsequent paragraphs below.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Human Systems Integration

Subfactor 2: System Architecture, Interfaces, and Performance

Subfactor 3: Systems Engineering and Program Management

Factor 2: Cost/Price

Factor 3: Past Performance

The relative importance of the factors are as follows: Technical is more important than

Cost/Price, and Cost/Price is more important than Past Performance. Within the Technical

Factor, the subfactors are of equal importance.

B. IMPORTANCE OF COST/PRICE

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are approximately equal to Cost/Price; however, Cost/Price will contribute substantially to the selection decision.

C. FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL

The Technical Factor evaluation provides an assessment of the offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s requirements. The Technical evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating.

These two ratings are presented together and are of equal impact for the rating for

Technical Subfactors 1, 2, and 3. The ratings are done at the subfactor level and an overall factor-level rating is not assigned.

Technical Rating. The Technical Rating reflects the degree to which the proposed solution meets, exceeds, or does not meet the Government’s file://SAN01/ESC-DI-Org/653%20ELSG-ES/ES-02%20SLC3S/Working%20Files/RFP/SCP%20Offical%20RFP/Final%20%20RFP%20Release%20(Latest)/Source%20Files/far/FAR15.DOC%23b15304 requirements. Each Technical subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2, Technical

Ratings. The Technical Ratings focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements.

Technical Risk Rating. The Technical Risk Rating focuses on the weaknesses associated with an offeror's proposed approach and includes an assessment of the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The Technical subfactors will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in the DoD Source Selection

Procedures, Table 3, Technical Risk Ratings. They focus on the weaknesses of the offeror’s proposed approach to each of the Technical subfactors. For any weakness identified, the evaluation will address the offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

1. Technical Subfactor 1: Human Systems Integration (HSI)

The Government will specifically evaluate the completeness and quality of the offeror’s approach to Human Systems Integration (HSI), including:

a. The completeness and quality of the offeror’s HSI Program Plan, including:

1) The offeror’s approach to enhancing TACP user proficiency in the field, using the v1.4.4 user interface as starting point for evolving the v1.4.5 HMI, while minimizing training and field impacts.

2) The approach to establishing and reporting HMI metrics.

3) The approach to user-centered analyses, such as prototyping, task analysis, usability analysis, from the early stages of the design process.

4) The planned frequency and quality of end-user engagement and interaction throughout the design, development, and test process.

5) The approach to performing mission analysis for the ASOC, TOC, and

Dismounted users to ensure appropriateness and effectiveness of the HMI for

TACP CASS Software at each echelon.

6) The approach to meeting requirements for personnel survivability.

7) The proportion of the team that has HSI as their primary responsibility and the extent of their integration with the systems engineering organization, including the HSI Working Group functions.

b. The completeness and quality of the offeror’s Human Machine Interface (HMI) Style

Guide, including the extent to which applicable state-of-the-art industry and government standards, best practices, and design guidelines are considered and incorporated into the HMI Style Guide, and how well the HMI Style Guide indicates support for multiple echelons, user roles, hardware configurations, and growth for new capabilities.

c. The extent to which the offeror’s HSI approach results in increased TACP operational efficiency to include supporting, requesting, and executing close air support (CAS) missions, with reduced operational risks.

2. Technical Subfactor 2: System Architecture, Interfaces, and Performance

The Government will specifically evaluate the following key aspects of the offeror’s technical solution:

a. The extent to which the overall TACP CASS Software System architecture is modular, flexible, and scalable, including:

1) The extent to which the architecture and each software component comply with open industry and Government standards, and avoid utilization of vendor-unique extensions to interface standards.

2) The ability of the proposed TACP CASS Software architecture to adapt to each of the computing platforms specified in the SRD and to integrate with potential future TACP computing platforms.

3) Support of capability and interoperability upgrades of the delivered TACP CASS

Software v1.4.5 without requiring major modifications to existing designs, components, or platform installation.

4) How well risk is reduced for technological obsolescence or dependency on a single source for software components and integration.

b. The extent to which the proposed solution’s interfaces comply with the SRD and support open industry and Government standards, including:

1) The extent to which the design can adapt to future changes to interfaces such as hardware and external messages.

2) The extent to which non-open interfaces are dealt with by the TACP CASS

Software design along with any impacts they may have on the TACP CASS

Software over the system’s lifecycle.

c. The extent to which the proposed software solution is sound, mature, and complies with the capabilities, functions, integration, performance, and quality requirements in the SRD, including:

1) The adequacy of the design for meeting reliability, maintainability, and availability requirements for a supportable TACP CASS Software system.

2) The degree to which the design is fault tolerant and provides for graceful degradation and recovery from failures.

3) The extent to which the proposed TACP CASS Software components have demonstrated maturity in TACP environments.

3. Technical Subfactor 3: Systems Engineering and Program Management

The Government will specifically evaluate the following aspects of the offeror’s systems engineering and program management capabilities:

a. The degree to which the offeror demonstrates an integrated TACP CASS Software system engineering and program management approach that is comprehensive, reasonable, and logically organized, including:

1) The extent to which the program plan and schedule is realistic, demonstrates that the entire proposed program is executable across multiple simultaneous software baselines, and provides an efficient and timely path leading to readiness for testing and fielding and initial operational capability (IOC)/full operational capability (FOC) for each software build/release.

2) The extent to which the proposed approach supports future upgrades and technology refreshes while minimizing impacts in the field and the support infrastructure.

3) The effectiveness of the proposed TACP CASS Software training program and the extent to which the training is tailored for TACP echelons and increases

TACP proficiency and mission availability.

4) The extent to which Capability Maturity Model Integration for Development

(CMMI-DEV, V1.2) Level 3 (or equivalent) capabilities have been formally assessed for each of the key Level 2 and Level 3 process areas required by the

TACP CASS Software, for the company organization/business unit(s) where the

TACP CASS Software v1.4.5 work will be performed.

b. The effectiveness of the proposed approach to integration of TACP CASS Software onto all mission computers while remaining backwards compatible with legacy TACP

CASS Software v1.4.4 and patches, including:

1) The adequacy of the offeror’s proposed design process management, documentation, system integration facilities, and configuration control in facilitating software interoperability and integration.

2) The adequacy of the offeror’s processes for coordinating engineering activities between its own and the legacy TACP CASS Software Interim Contractor

Support (ICS) teams for incorporating ICS maintenance upgrades into the CASS

Software v1.4.5 baseline.

c. The extent to which the offeror’s software development processes are mature, repeatable, and robust, including:

1) The maturity of the methodologies for software size, effort, and schedule estimation of both new and reused (lifted or modified) software. Maturity here refers to the basis for the estimates, such as historical data, statistical analysis, analogies, commercial models, multiple methodologies, etc., as well as how feedback from previous estimations (i.e., for prior efforts) have impacted the current estimates (i.e., for CASS Software v1.4.5).

2) The maturity and soundness of the proposed software development process and software standards for both new and reused software. Maturity here refers to the stability of the process and the adequacy of the standards for ensuring that the delivered software is free from any defects that could impact its performance and contains a minimal number of latent defects.

3) The soundness of the proposed software integration approach and the adequacy of the software integration facilities.

d. The extent to which the overall test and validation strategy is robust and optimizes resources to demonstrate TACP CASS Software compliance with the SRD, including:

1) Evaluation of software system effectiveness, network hardware suitability, interoperability/compatibility (including processing of all current TACP CASS messages in accordance with standards), and integration of TACP CASS with all

TACP platforms, aircraft operational flight programs (OFPs), and radios.

2) The soundness and robustness of the proposed contractor test (CT) approach, to ensure the software system will pass the Government developmental and operational test (DT/OT) for TACP CASS.

3) The extent to which the TACP CASS Software components meet DoD

Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process (DIACAP) requirements, ensuring that the TACP CASS Software components adequately address all information assurance (IA) performance, certification, and accreditation requirements.

e. The extent to which the approach to ICS/Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) enhances supportability without significantly impacting existing support infrastructure, including:

1) The ability to provide responsive help desk operations.

2) Implementation of a timely and repeatable software service pack/patch approach.

3) The extent to which the field support concept is appropriate and responsive.

f. The extent to which the offeror provides the Government with data rights that will enable disclosure outside the Government to a third party, to be used for purposes to sustain and modify the TACP CASS Software over its lifecycle. The Government will consider both the number and type of proposed restrictions on the data rights (including evaluation of data rights in key components and interfaces) to be delivered under this contract and the risks imposed to future sustainment and modification of the TACP CASS Software. The offeror will receive favorable consideration for proposing data rights that will facilitate the future sustainment and modification of TACP CASS Software by the Government or a third party.

g. The extent to which small business participation is identified in the offeror’s Small

Business Subcontracting Plan.

1) The specific identification of small business concerns on the offeror’s team.

2) The establishment of specific targets for small business participation.

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

D. FACTOR 2: COST/PRICE

The offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 in order to determine if it is reasonable and realistic. For a cost/price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, cost/price reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b), the Government may require submission of Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data to the extent necessary to support a determination of fair and reasonable.

If the Government evaluates the proposed effort to be unrealistically low or high compared to the offeror’s anticipated cost of performance, the Government will consider the offeror’s lack of understanding of requirements as part of the risk rating in the appropriate Technical subfactor.

1. Cost/Price Reasonableness

Reasonableness is evaluated by assessing the acceptability of the offeror’s methodology used in developing cost estimates such that proposed costs and labor rates indicate a clear understanding of solicitation requirements and reflect a sound approach to satisfying those requirements. Cost information supporting a cost judged to be unrealistically low, and technical/management risk associated with the proposal, will be quantified by the

Government evaluators.

Unrealistically low proposed costs or price estimates, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement or the offeror has made an unrealistic proposal.

2. Cost Realism

A cost realism analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d). The

Government will perform a cost realism analysis on each cost type CLIN in the TACP

CASS effort. A Government Estimate of Most Probable Cost (GEMPC) analysis, as determined by the cost/price realism assessment (CPRA), will be performed in the realism evaluation. The Government evaluation of cost realism will consider the extent to which proposed costs indicate a clear understanding of solicitation requirements, and determine whether the proposal reflects a sound approach to satisfying those requirements and whether the proposed labor escalation and indirect factors are reasonable.

The Government will evaluate the completeness, accuracy, currency, validity, and supportability of cost, labor, and productivity estimates provided in the proposal to include a detailed review of all historical data used in preparing these estimates. The

Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to factoring margins for error correction, defect correction, rework, etc. into the estimates.

A significant difference between the offeror’s proposed cost/price and the GEMPC will be considered an indicator that the offeror does not understand the requirement and will be reflected in the Government’s realism analysis.

In addition, the Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror’s proposed use of Government-Furnished Property (GFP) that is not included in the list of GFP being providing by the Government in Section J Attachment 5. This will be accomplished by assessing the equivalent value (see

FAR 45.2) of those resources as part of the offer. Any adjustments made resulting in the use of GFP will be captured in the GEMPC.

3. Unbalanced Pricing The Government may determine a proposal unacceptable if the proposed cost/price, by Contract Line item Number (CLIN), including all options, is determined to be materially unbalanced as described in FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more items is significant overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques.

4. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) The offeror’s proposed costs shall not be controlling for source selection purposes. The sum of the offeror’s proposed cost/price, which includes the base period and all options, will be evaluated in accordance with the following:

The TEP for award purposes will be calculated as the GEMPC as determined by the CPRA and will be the sum of the following:

a. Cost-Plus-Incentive-Fee (CPIF) CLINs will be evaluated based on the GEMPC as determined by the CPRA plus target fee. Specifically, the target cost and target fee will be evaluated as follows:

i. Target Cost: Evaluated by the CPRA.

ii. Target Fee: As proposed.

b. Cost Reimbursable CLINs will be evaluated based on the GEMPC as determined by the CPRA.

c. Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs will be evaluated at the total proposed price.

d. Time and Materials (T&M) CLIN for Special Studies will be evaluated at the

Government assigned value of $300,000.00.

5. Evaluation of Options

All options under the contract will be evaluated as indicated above; however, evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

E. FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

The Past Performance evaluation assesses whether the Government has confidence in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs based on a demonstrated record of performance, including cost and schedule.

The Government evaluation team will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine how closely the work performed under those efforts relates to the proposed effort. The team will confirm past and present performance data identified by the Offerors in their proposals and obtain additional past and present performance data, if available, from other sources. Each Offeror will receive a rating of acceptable or unacceptable as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table A-2, Past

Performance Evaluation Ratings. This rating is made at the subfactor level and represents an overall evaluation of the Offeror’s ability to meet the requirements and objectives of this solicitation.

Unless otherwise stated, the term “Offeror” includes the prime contractor, subcontractors, teaming partners, and joint venture partners. “Prime Contractor” is the specific company division and legal entity with which the Government creates contractual privity by entering into a contract. “Subcontractor,” “teaming partner,” and “joint venture partners” mean any supplier, distributor, vendor, or firm that furnishes supplies or services to or for a prime contractor or another subcontractor, teaming partner, or joint venture partner.

The Government will consider Past Performance on an individual contract basis. Offerors must demonstrate positive control over business units that performed on such submitted contracts. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System

(PPIRS) or similar systems, DCMA, and commercial sources.

1. Recency Assessment

An assessment of the Past Performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed starting at a point five (5) years prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation, and continuing up to the date of an award decision. Past Performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2. Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent Past Performance obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to scope, magnitude, and complexity of the TACP CASS Software v1.4.5 effort.

Past performance will be assessed through the degrees of relevancy in DoD Source

Selection Procedures, Table 4, Past Performance Relevancy Ratings. For Past

Performance to be considered relevant, it must have been performed by the same division being proposed to perform on the TACP CASS Software contract.

3. Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality of all efforts that have been determined to be recent and relevant. For each recent and relevant past performance citation reviewed, the Government will consider the performance quality of the work performed. If an offeror's performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent efforts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness. If the Government is unable to confirm performance with the customer of a contract, that contract will not be used in the overall assessment. The customer is considered to be the entity with whom the offeror has a signed agreement. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT LEVELS

Rating Description

SATISFACTORY (S) During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting or exceeding (or has met or exceeded) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, the contractor took effective corrective action.

UNSATISFACTORY (U) During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or failed) to meet many or most contract requirements. Serious problems were encountered.

Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive customer oversight and involvement were required.

4. Assigning Ratings

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, each offeror will receive an acceptable or unacceptable rating as described in the DoD

Source Selection Procedures, Table A-2, Past Performance Evaluation Ratings . In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

M003 PLANT VISITS

Plant and/or site visits are not anticipated as part of this evaluation.

M004 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors and subfactors to be eligible for award. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being removed from consideration for award. Any exceptions to the solicitation’s terms and conditions must be fully explained and justified.