0012_SRW_Section_M_EvaluationCrit.docx

ATTACHMENT 0012 – SECTION M

1.1. SECTION M

1.1.1. General. The Government is conducting this source selection in accordance with the competitive negotiation source selection procedures contained in FAR Part 15.

1.1.1.1. Best Value - The Government intends to award a multiple award indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract, to approximately five (5) responsible Offerors, as well as two Delivery Orders. In accordance with FAR 15.101, the Government shall make all three award decision utilizing processes from the Best Value Continuum. Best value, as defined in FAR Part 2, is the expected outcome of an acquisition that in the Government’s estimation provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. Within the best value continuum, the Government will employ a tradeoff analysis to award the basic multiple award IDIQ contracts. In performing its trade-off analysis, the Government will compare any relevant differences among the evaluated proposals to determine which proposal offers the overall best value. As a result, award may not necessarily be made to the proposal offering the lowest price or receiving the highest technical rating. The Source Selection Authority will determine which proposal is most advantageous to the Government. For the first two Delivery Orders, the Government will employ the lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) source selection process. As a result, award will be made to the Offeror’s whose proposal is found technically acceptable and has the lowest evaluated price.

1.1.1.2. Discussions – The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award the contract without discussions with the Offerors with the exception of clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a); and will evaluate each offer on the basis of the Offeror’s initial proposal. Therefore, the initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical and price standpoint.

1.1.1.3. Sources of Evaluation Data - When conducting the evaluation, the Government may use data included by Offerors in their proposals, as well as data obtained from other sources. Each Offeror is responsible for ensuring that the information provided is thorough, accurate, and complete.

1.1.1.4. The Government may make award prior to a finalized QASP being incorporated into the delivery order, but actual commencement of any support services, other than the transition plan effort, cannot begin until a final QASP has been approved by the Government and incorporated into the delivery order. An offeror’s proposed QASP may be used in whole or in part by the Government to develop the Government’s final plan.

1.1.2. Basis for Award

1.1.2.1. Proposals shall be rated and ranked based on the evaluation factors and sub-factors listed below. It should be noted that factors and sub-factors are not numerically weighted.

1.1.2.2. The Government intends to make the following three, distinct award decisions from W15P7T-12-R-0059: 1) Multiple, Multiple Award IDIQ contracts; 2) Award of Delivery Order 0001; 3) Award of Delivery Order 0002. Offerors must be selected to receive award of one of the Multiple Award IDIQ contracts to be eligible for delivery order awards. The basis for award of each is as follows:

1.1.2.2.1. Multiple Award IDIQ Contracts :

1.1.2.2.1.1. The Government intends to award multiple basic IDIQ contracts to those Offerors whose proposals are determined to represent the best value to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the following factors/sub-factors:

• Factor I: Technical

· Sub-Factor A: Waveforms

· Sub-Factor B: Certifications

· Sub-Factor C: Suitability

1.1.2.2.1.2. The relative importance of these factors is as follows: Factor I - Technical is significantly more important than the Factor II - Past Performance, Factor III – Basic Cost/Price, and Factor IV - Small Business Participation when combined. Factor II - Past Performance, Factor III – Basic Cost Price, and Factor IV - Small Business Participation are of equal importance. The Technical Factor is divided into three (3) Sub-factors: Waveform, Certifications, and Suitability. All of these Sub-factors are of equal importance. All non-priced factors combined are significantly more important than the Cost/Price factor.

1.1.2.2.1.3. To receive consideration for award of a basic contract, Offerors must achieve a rating of no less than “Acceptable/Green” for both the Technical Factor (to include all Sub-factors) and the Small Business Participation Factor.

1.1.2.2.2. Delivery Order 0001:

1.1.2.2.2.1. The Government intends to award Delivery Order 0001 to the Offeror whose proposal is determined to be Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) given the following factors/sub-factors:

· Factor V: Delivery Order 0001 - Technical

· Sub-Factor A: Production Schedule

· Sub-Factor B: Certification

· Sub-Factor C: Suitability

· Sub-Factor D: Manpower

· Sub-Factor E: QASP

• Factor VI: Delivery Order 0001 - Cost/Price

1.1.2.2.2.2. Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is found to be technically acceptable and represents the lowest evaluated price. Please note that receipt of an unacceptable rating in any of the sub-factors under Factor V shall render the entire factor unacceptable.

1.1.2.2.2.3. To receive consideration for award of Delivery Order 0001, Offerors must achieve a rating of no less than “Acceptable” for Factor V Technical Factor (to include all Sub-factors) and must be selected to receive award of one of the Multiple Award IDIQ contracts.

1.1.2.2.3. Delivery Order 0002:

1.1.2.2.3.1. The Government intends to award Delivery Order 0002 to the Offeror whose proposal is determined to be Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) given the following factors/sub-factors:

· Factor VII: Delivery Order 0002 - Technical

· Sub-Factor A: Production Schedule

· Sub-Factor B: Certification

· Sub-Factor C: Suitability

· Sub-Factor D: Manpower

· Sub-Factor E: QASP

• Factor VIII: Delivery Order 0002 - Cost/Price

1.1.2.2.3.2. Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal if found to be technically acceptable and represents the lowest price. Please note that receipt of an unacceptable rating in any of the sub-factors under Factor VII shall render the entire factor unacceptable.

1.1.2.2.3.3. To receive consideration for award of Delivery Order 0002, Offerors must achieve a rating of no less than “Acceptable” for Factor VII Technical Factor (to include all Sub-factors) and must be selected to receive award of one of the Multiple Award IDIQ contracts.

1.1.3. Evaluation Ratings For Non Price Factors and Sub-Factors:

1.1.3.1. Evaluators will be instructed to select the technical rating that most closely fits the value or desirability of the Offeror's proposed performance. Evaluators will be instructed to select the risk rating that most closely fits the potential risk of the Offeror not meeting the proposed performance. The ratings used for the non-price evaluations are contained in the tables below.

1.1.3.2. The Offerors’ provided artifacts will be used to assess the risk of the Offeror of meeting threshold requirements. The Offeror’s must provide artifact documentation which proves the Offerors have current product that meets or exceeds all threshold requirements. In the absence of an Offeror’s provided documentation, the Government shall assume no capability exists even if that capability had been documented by the Government in the past.

1.1.3.2.1. Offerors should provide copies of Government artifacts wherever possible. The Government will give greater weight to artifacts attested to by independent Government agencies over Offeror’s or self-attested artifacts. For example, an After Actions Report (AAR) from the National Training Center (NTC) that cites a capability or an operational mission thread that was enabled by the offered product may be given greater weight by the Government than a statement from the Offeror attesting to participation in that same event.

Table 1. Technical Ratings

Table 2 Risk Ratings

Table 3. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Table 4. Performance Confidence Assessments

Table 5. Small Business

Table 6. Technical – For Use with the LPTA Process

1.1.4. Factor I (Technical)

Factor 1, Technical, consists of an assessment of three sub-factors; waveforms, certification and suitability. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than "Acceptable/Green" must be achieved for the Technical Factor and each Technical sub-factor rating. The Technical factor rating will consist of a roll-up of the sub-factor ratings, taking into account their appropriate weights. However, an unacceptable rating for a sub-factor will render the Technical factor unacceptable as well. The Government will consider giving strengths for exceeding PWS threshold requirements. The Government may also consider giving strengths for meeting or exceeding objectives identified in the PWS. Such strengths may result in an increase in the rating that would otherwise be assigned for the relevant assessment. Factor and sub-factor evaluation standard: See Table 1, Technical Ratings and Table 2, Technical Risk Ratings.

1.1.4.1. Sub-Factor A (Waveforms)

1.1.4.1.1. Software Version Description (SVD). The Government will evaluate if the offered SVD fully describes all firmware, software, waveform(s) and/or the integrated build IAW Data Item Description DI-IPSC-81442A, Software Version Description (SVD). Completeness of “Inventory of Software Contents” and “Possible Problems and Known Errors” are of particular interest to the Government.

1.1.4.1.2. Requirements Traceability. The Government will evaluate if the offered Traceability document includes all of the requirements from the Waveform Design Specification (WDS) Revision C dated March 2012. The Government will evaluate if all of the threshold requirements in the PWS have been “fully” implemented in the offered baseline. The Government will evaluate if the PWS threshold requirements have been technically or operationally tested.

1.1.4.1.3. Interoperability with JTRS POR Radio and/or non-POR SRW Radio. Interoperability with JTRS POR Radio and/or non-POR SRW Radios. The Government will evaluate the submitted artifacts to determine if the offered radio system successfully demonstrated over-the-air (OTA) interoperability with a JTRS Program of Record (POR) and/or non-POR SRW Radio (such as the Rifleman Radio, Manpack Radio, and/or non-POR Radio. The Offeror simply stating that it participated in an “event” or “network” alone does not provide evidence of OTA interoperability. Machine documented voice and data exchanges between radio systems is best evidence of OTA interoperability; documented human observations are acceptable.

1.1.4.1.4. Interoperability with IP Based Management Tools. The Government will evaluate the submitted artifacts to determine if the offered radio system successfully demonstrated interoperability with the targeted IP Based Management Tools: JTRS Enterprise Network Manager (JENM), Joint Automated Communication-Electronics Operating Instructions Systems (JACS), Automated Communication Engineering Software (ACES) and the Soldier Radio Waveform Network Manger (SRWNM). The Government will evaluate the artifacts to determine if they demonstrate that the offered radio system was able to successfully consume keying materiel, consume initialization data, accept configuration fines and re-configuration data and support other network management features from each of the four targeted management tools. Machine documented success of the various network management capabilities is best evidence of interoperability with the tools; documented human observations are acceptable.

1.1.4.2. Sub-Factor B (Certifications). The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s current radio system possesses an NSA certification, ATO/DIACAP, spectrum certification, and safety assessment report (SAR), all of which are required for fielding to the end user. Offerors whose radio systems do not currently possess these will be evaluated by the Government in accordance with the criteria set forth below. However, after award, Offerors on the base contract whose radio systems do not possess an NSA certification, an ATO, spectrum certification, and/or safety assessment report (SAR) may be ineligible to compete on future D.O.’s where these items are required. The following will be evaluated:

1.1.4.2.1. NSA Certification. The Government will verify that the offered radio system has obtained NSA Certification. For those Offerors whose radio system is not currently certified by NSA, the Government will evaluate the feasibility of the Offeror’s NSA certification plan. The Government may contact NSA to discuss the contents of the Offeror’s proposed certification plan.

1.1.4.2.2. ATO/DIACAP. The Government will verify that the offered radio system has obtained an Authority to Operate (ATO/ Interim ATO (IATO)). For those Offerors whose radio systems do not have an ATO/IATO, the Government will evaluate the feasibility of the Offeror’s ATO implementation plan. The Government may contact the Designated Accreditation Authority (DAA) to discuss the contents of the Offeror’s proposed certification plan.

1.1.4.2.3. Spectrum Certification. The Government will verify that the offered radio system has obtained Spectrum Certification. For those Offerors whose radios system is not currently certified, the Government will evaluate that DD Form 1494 is properly filled out utilizing measured data, and that the Offeror stated in Item 3 - Stage of Allocation, that the offered radio system is at Stage 4 – Operational. Offerors who state they are not at Stage 4 – Operational, or are found to be not at Stage 4 – Operational shall not be eligible for award. The Government may contact the HQDA CIO to discuss the contents of the Spectrum Certification.

1.1.4.2.4. SAR. The Government will verify that the Offeror radio system has an approved Safety Assessment Report (SAR). For those Offerors whose radio systems do not have an approved SAR, the Government will evaluate the draft SAR to see if it is properly filled out and complete. The Government will evaluate if the draft SAR appears to identify all inherent safety hazards and environmental considerations associated with the radio system IAW MIL-STD-882E & MIL-STD-810G. The Government may contact the CECOM Safety Office to discuss the contents of the SAR.

1.1.4.3. Sub-Factor C (Suitability)

1.1.4.3.1. System Configuration Baseline. The Government will evaluate to see in the elements of the DI-CMAN-81121 are addressed the Baseline Description Document. The Government will evaluate if the Baseline Description Document clearly depicts all of the radio system components. The Government will evaluate if all of the components are included and if the relationship between the whole and each component are clearly articulated. The Government will evaluate if there is a good general description of the software and firmware top level requirements and appropriate references to critical design documents such as WDS and TEMPEST.

1.1.4.3.2. EMI/EMC. The Government will evaluate the submitted synopsis to determine if the offered radio meets the PWS EMI/EMC requirement. The Government will determine if there is a Test Plan and Test Report available for all required PWS EMI/EMC requirements IAW MIL-STD-461F, MIL-STD-464C, and MIL-STD 2169B. In order to be found acceptable the Offeror must have test documentation attesting that 90% of the PWS EMI/ECM requirements Passed or Passed with Comment testing. Offerors who fail to meet PWS EMI/EMC requirements may not be considered for award.

1.1.4.3.3. Environmental. The Government will evaluate the submitted synopsis to determine if the offered radio meets the environmental PWS requirements. The Government will determine if there is a Test Plan and Test Report available for all required PWS environmental IAW MIL-STD-810G. Based on the reported test results, the Government will estimate the extent to which the offered radio will be reliable and operate within the intended environment. In order to be found acceptable the Offeror must have test documentation attesting that 90% of the PWS environmental requirements Passed or Passed with Comment testing. Offerors who fail to meet PWS environmental requirements may not be considered for award.

1.1.4.3.4. ILS Plan. The Government will evaluate the Offerors’ Integrated Logistics Plan and determine if the ten ILS elements identified in AR 700-127 are clearly addressed. The Government will evaluate the ILS Plan and determine if the plan is complete and reasonable and address both CONUS and OCONUS considerations. In addition the Government will determine whether the specific points of interest identified in Section L paragraphs 1.2.1.6.4.1, 1.2.1.6.4.2, and 1.2.1.6.4.3 have been completely addressed. The Maintenance Planning, Supply Support and Training Concept are no more important than the other elements of the ILS Plan detailed in Table 3-1 of AR 700-127.

1.1.4.3.5. Reliability Analysis. The Government will evaluate if a complete reliability analysis was provided. The Government will determine if the Offeror identified the source of the data as either measured or calculated. The Government will determine if the assumptions and planning factors that were selected for the analysis seem reasonable. The Government will determine if the analysis was appropriately incorporated into the offered Maintenance Plan and RTAT.

1.1.5. Factor II (Past Performance)

1.1.5.1. The Government will conduct a performance confidence assessment based upon the quality of the Offeror’s past performance as it relates to the probability of successful accomplishment of the required effort on this contract. The Government will evaluate the quality and relevance of the Offeror’s, and its critical subcontractors’ (as defined in Section L paragraph 1.2.2.2), past performance information provided in its proposal. In addition to these contracts, the Government may also independently identify and evaluate the quality of the Offeror’s performance on other contracts that are relevant to the solicitation’s requirements. For the purpose of the Past Performance evaluation, the term Offeror is inclusive of the Prime and any critical subcontractors. For the purposes of this evaluation relevant past performance is defined as past performance that demonstrates knowledge or experience with software defined radio sets, or demonstrates management, cost, and technical experience with the design, development, production and or integration of software defined radio sets. Evaluation standard: See Table 3, Past Performance Evaluation and Table 4, Performance Confidence Assessments.

1.1.5.1.1. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s relevant past performance and will consider:

1.1.5.1.2. The Government may base its judgment about the quality of an Offeror’s past performance on:

· Records of objective measurements and subjective ratings of specified performance attributes, if available, and

· Statements of opinion about the quality of specific aspects of an Offeror’s performance, or about the quality of an Offeror’s overall performance.

1.1.5.1.3. The Government may solicit information from an Offeror’s customers and business associates; Federal, state and local Government agencies; and from other persons and organizations. The Government may also check data in the Past Performance Information Retrieval Systems (PPIRS), which is the output system of performance data entered into the Contractor Performance Appraisal System (CPARs).

1.1.5.1.4. The Government reserves the right to limit the number of references it decides to contact and to contact references other than those provided by the Offeror including sources outside the Government.

1.1.5.1.5. If an Offeror submits a certification statement and the Government has no information available regarding the Offeror’s past performance, that Offeror will receive a neutral rating (i.e., the Offeror is evaluated neither favorably nor unfavorably) for past performance. If the Offeror provides reference information that is not relevant and current as stated in Section L, the Offeror will receive a neutral past performance rating for those contracts.

1.1.6. Factor III (Price)

1.1.6.1. The Government intends to perform price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b). However, it reserves the right to utilize any of the evaluation techniques found at 15.404-1. The total evaluated price shall consist of the sum of the range FFP evaluated prices added to the non-range FFP evaluated price and added to the CPFF fixed fee evaluated price, as calculated in the MS Excel file 0001-SRW Price Spreadsheet.xlsx.

1.1.6.1.1. FFP Range. The FFP Range portion consists of the sum of the evaluated prices of the FFP range quantity items provided in the MS Excel file 0001-SRW Price Spreadsheet.xlsx. The total evaluated range FFP shall consist of the sum of the evaluated prices for the range quantity items (for each hardware item) as calculated in accordance with the Attachment 0002. The Government will evaluate the FFP proposal for unbalanced pricing in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g).

1.1.6.1.2. FFP Non-Range. The FFP Non-Range portion consists of the sum of the evaluated prices of the FFP non-range quantity items provided in the MS Excel file 0001-SRW Price Spreadsheet.xlsx. The total evaluated non-range FFP shall consist of the sum of the evaluated prices for the non-range quantity items as calculated in accordance with Attachment 0002.

1.1.6.1.3. CPFF Fixed Fee Ceiling Rate. The fixed fee will be applied to a Government-provided amount for evaluation purposes only as calculated in accordance with the Attachment 0002. This amount will be added by contract and option year to the total evaluated price.

1.1.6.1.4. Warranty. The Government shall perform a Warranty Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) as a part of the proposal evaluation, utilizing the Offerors submitted warranty support information as required in Attachment 0003. Offerors whose two and/or five year warranties are determined not to be cost effective will be eligible for basic contract award. However, those Offerors will be ineligible to compete on any D.O. requiring that warranty(s). The two year and five year warranty prices will be part of the total evaluated price and Trade Off narrative. The eight year warranty, if proposed, will only be part of the Trade Off narrative.

1.1.7. Factor IV (Small Business Commitment)

1.1.7.1. All Offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of small business commitment that they are demonstrating for the proposed acquisition, and their prior level of commitment utilizing small businesses in performance of prior contracts. Evaluation standard: See Table 5, Small Business. The Government will evaluate:

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

· The extent of commitment to use such small business firms (enforceable commitments will be considered more favorable than non-enforceable ones);

· The complexity and variety of the work small businesses are to perform;

· The realism of the proposal;

· Past performance of the Offeror in complying with the requirements of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and, additionally for all large business Offerors, FAR 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan;

· The extent of participation of such firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition, to include all Small Business sub-categories dollars by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code deemed applicable by the Offeror; and

· The extent to which the Offeror provides detailed explanations/documentation supporting the proposed participation percentages. The Small Business goals for this procurement are 23% of the total contract value; Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB): 5% of the total contract value; Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB): 5% of the total contract value; Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Small Business: 3% of the total contract value; Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB): 3% of the total contract value; Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB): 3% of the total contract value. (NOTE: for example, that a participation plan that reflects 1% of the contract value for WOSB would also count towards the overall Small Business Goal; and percentages for SDVOSB also count towards VOSB).The Small Business Participation Plan and negotiated goals will be a material portion of the resultant contract. The content of the plan will be utilized in the compliance evaluations to be conducted thereafter. Once the final goal is negotiated and/or accepted by the Government it will be a firm contract requirement not a good faith effort.

1.1.8. Factor V – Technical – Delivery Order 0001

1.1.8.1. Factor V – Technical – Delivery Order 0001, consists of an assessment of three sub-factors; production/delivery schedule, certifications and suitability. Factor and sub-factor evaluation standard: See Table 6, Technical Ratings (For use with LPTA).

1.1.8.1.1. Sub-Factor A – Production/Delivery Schedule. The Government will evaluate if the offered delivery schedule meets or exceeds the stated radio systems and installation kits delivery requirements. Offerors who fail to submit acceptable delivery schedules will not be considered for award.

1.1.8.1.2. Sub-Factor B – Certification.

1.1.8.1.2.1. NSA Certification. The Government will verify that the offered radio system has obtained NSA SECRET Certification. If the Government is not in receipt of the required certification by 1500 EST on 1 February 2013, the Offeror shall not be considered for D.O. award.

1.1.8.1.2.2. ATO/DIACAP. The Government will verify that the offered radio system has obtained an Authority to Operate (ATO/ Interim ATO (IATO)). For those Offerors whose radio systems do not have an ATO/IATO, the Government will evaluate the feasibility of the Offeror’s plan to achieve ATO implementation by 30 June 2013. The Government may contact the Designated Accreditation Authority (DAA) to discuss the contents of the Offeror’s proposed certification plan. If an Offeror’s plan to achieve ATO by 30 June 2013 is determined not to be feasible it will be deemed unacceptable and the Offeror will not be considered for D.O. award.

1.1.8.1.3. Sub-Factor C – Suitability. The Government will evaluate the Offerors’ Support Plan to determine if all of the requirements in the PWS Delivery Order have been included. The Government will evaluate if the offered approach is feasible and complete. Offerors who fail to address all of the requirements in the Delivery Order PWS may not be considered for award.

1.1.8.1.4. Sub-Factor D – Manpower. The Government will evaluate the position descriptions and resumes submitted by the Offeror to determine if they are acceptable and will meet the requirements of D.O. 0001 PWS paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2.

1.1.8.1.5. Sub-Factor E – QASP. The Government will evaluate the QASP submitted by the Offeror to determine if it meets the requirements of Section L paragraph 1.2.5.5.

1.1.9. Factor VI – Cost/Price Proposal – Delivery Order 0001

1.1.9.1. Hardware and Services (FFP) –The Hardware and Services shall be evaluated utilizing price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b). Prices proposed on the basic contract will be used to ensure Offerors are not proposing over the basic contract ceiling amounts.

1.1.9.2. The total evaluated price to be used in the award determination will be the total identified in the Offeror’s Cost Proposal for the base period, to include the FFP CLIN at the proposed amounts and the cost-type CLINs, the latter being subject to most probable cost adjustment(s) resulting from the Government’s cost realism analysis. The Government shall evaluate to ensure that all the proposed costs are fair, reasonable, and realistic. Each Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria in FAR 15.404-1. Accordingly, the analytical techniques and procedures prescribed in FAR 15.404-1 for evaluating Offeror’s proposal may be used singly or in combination with others to ensure the costs are fair, reasonable, and/or realistic.

1.1.9.3. For the cost efforts, the Government will evaluate the realism of Offeror's proposed costs in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. The probable cost may be determined by adjusting (for purposes of evaluation only) each Offeror’s proposed cost and/or Fee, when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis.

1.1.9.4. NOTE: The Government may use external sources of information in performing its cost evaluation to include, but not limited to, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, Department of State, DCAA, or DCMA. This DOES NOT remove responsibility by the Offeror from submitting supporting documentation for its proposed rates.

1.1.10. Factor VII – Technical – Delivery Order 0002

1.1.10.1. Factor VII – Technical – Delivery Order 0002, consists of an assessment of three sub-factors; production/delivery schedule, certifications and suitability. Factor and sub-factor evaluation standard: See Table 6, Technical Ratings (For use with LPTA).

1.1.10.1.1. Sub-Factor A – Production/Delivery Schedule. The Government will evaluate if the offered delivery schedule meets or exceeds the stated radio systems and installation kits delivery requirements. Offerors who fail to submit acceptable delivery schedules will not be considered for award.

1.1.10.1.2. Sub-Factor B – Certification.

1.1.10.1.2.1. NSA Certification. The Government will verify that the offered radio system has obtained NSA Sensitive but Unclassified (SBU) Certification or NSA SECRET Certification. If the Government is not in receipt of the required certification by 1500 EST on 1 February 2013, the Offeror shall not be considered for D.O. award.

1.1.10.1.2.2. ATO/DIACAP. The Government will verify that the offered radio system has obtained an Authority to Operate (ATO/ Interim ATO (IATO)). For those Offerors whose radio system does not have an ATO/IATO, the Government will evaluate the feasibility of the Offeror’s ATO implementation plan. The Government may contact the Designated Accreditation Authority (DAA) to discuss the contents of the Offeror’s proposed certification plan. If an Offeror’s plan to achieve ATO by 30 June 2013 is determined not to be feasible it will be deemed unacceptable and the Offeror will not be considered for D.O. award.

1.1.10.1.3. Sub-Factor C – Suitability. The Government will evaluate the Offerors’ Support Plan to determine if all of the requirements in the PWS Delivery Order has been included. The Government will evaluate if the offered approach is feasible and complete. Offerors who fail to address all of the requirements in the Delivery Order PWS may not be considered for award.

1.1.10.1.4. Sub-Factor D – Manpower. The Government will evaluate the position descriptions and resumes submitted by the Offeror to determine if they will meet the requirements of D.O. 0002 PWS paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2.

1.1.10.1.5. Sub-Factor E – QASP. The Government will evaluate the QASP submitted by the Offeror to determine if it meets the requirements of Section L paragraph 1.2.7.5.

1.1.11. Factor VIII – Cost/Price Proposal – Delivery Order 0002

1.1.11.1. Hardware and Services (FFP) –The Hardware and Services shall be evaluated utilizing price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b). Prices proposed on the basic contract will be used to ensure Offerors are not proposing over the basic contract ceiling amounts.

1.1.11.2. The total evaluated price to be used in the award determination will be the total identified in the Offeror’s Cost Proposal for the base period, to include the FFP CLIN at the proposed amounts and the cost-type CLINs, the latter being subject to most probable cost adjustment(s) resulting from the Government’s cost realism analysis. The Government shall evaluate to ensure that all the proposed costs are fair, reasonable, and realistic. Each Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria in FAR 15.404-1. Accordingly, the analytical techniques and procedures prescribed in FAR 15.404-1 for evaluating Offeror’s proposal may be used singly or in combination with others to ensure the costs are fair, reasonable, and/or realistic.

1.1.11.3. For the cost efforts, the Government will evaluate the realism of Offeror's proposed costs in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. The probable cost may be determined by adjusting (for purposes of evaluation only) each Offeror’s proposed cost and/or Fee, when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis.

1.1.11.4. NOTE: The Government may use external sources of information in performing its cost evaluation to include, but not limited to, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, Department of State, DCAA, or DCMA. This DOES NOT remove responsibility by the Offeror from submitting supporting documentation for its proposed rates.

1.1.12 Non-Government Personnel

1.1.12.1. The evaluation of proposals shall be performed by Government with the exception that technical advisors from Engineering Solutions and Products (ESP) and ManTech, and STI are included as part of the technical team. The use of these non-Government advisors shall be supported by a written determination based on FAR 37.203 and 37.204. A Non-Disclosure Agreement will be on file for each Government and non-Government personnel on the Source Selection Team. All non-Government personnel shall also submit documentation to the PCO indicating their personal stock holdings prior to being allowed access to source selection sensitive information. In addition, the PCO shall ensure that before the non-Government advisor is given access to proprietary information, that the Government has received the consent of the submitting contractor(s) to provide access to the contractor who is to assist in the source selection.

1.1.12.2. Limitations on use of non-Government advisors. Non-Government advisors may assist in and provide input regarding the evaluation, but shall not determine ratings or rankings of Offerors’ proposals. Disclosure of past performance information to non-Government personnel shall not occur (reference DoD Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) Policy Guide, Architect-Engineer Contract Administration Support System (ACASS) Policy Guide, and Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) Policy Guide). Accordingly, non-Government advisors shall not participate in the review and evaluation of past performance information. (See FAR 42.1503).

C-14