Attachment_0006-_Sentinel_A4_Section_M_13_Jan.docx

Section M Evaluation Factors for Award For the Sentinel Increment A4 Program

13 January 2017

PREPARED FOR:

Army Contracting Command – Redstone Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-5000

Coordination Page

Submitted by:

Concurrence:

Approval:

***** DRAFT *****

***** DRAFT *****

Contents

M. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD (SECTION M)

M.1. Basis for Award The Government intends to award based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that the Government determines to be the most beneficial to the Government. Each offeror must make its own judgments in designing its approach with due consideration to the Government's priorities and overall cost and schedule constraints. This evaluation will assess the proposed approach and design and the likelihood of successful contract performance considering the strength and weakness of each proposal. The Government reserves the right to award one contract or no contract at all based on the quality of the proposals.

The Government will conduct this source selection in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Subpart 15.3, as supplemented. The Government will follow the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures (SSP), dated 01 April 2016, and the Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3), dated 21 December 2012. The Government may award a contract to the acceptable offeror whose best value assessment is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, and whose proposal addresses all of the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation). To arrive at a modified best value decision, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will review the Source Selection Evaluation Board’s (SSEB) evaluations of the factors and sub-factors (described below) and the Source Selection Advisory Council’s (SSAC) advice and recommendation.

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

The Government will consider four (4) evaluation factors: Technical, Past Performance, Small Business Participation, and Cost/Price. The Technical factor is the most important factor. Technical is more important than Cost/Price and significantly more important than Past Performance and Small Business Participation, which are approximately equal. To receive consideration for award, an offeror must achieve a rating of no less than “Acceptable” for the Technical factor (to include all sub-factors) and the Small Business Participation factor. The Government cautions offerors that the Government may not necessarily award to the lowest cost offered. The Government may award to the acceptable offeror with the lowest best value assessment who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, and whose proposal addresses all of the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation). NOTE: All non-cost factors, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

M.2. Factors and Sub-Factors The Government will use the following evaluation factors and sub-factors to evaluate each proposal. The Government will award to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and sub-factors described below:

Factor 1: Technical

a. Sub-factor 1 – System Design and Performance

b. Sub-factor 2 – System Producibility

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each sub-factor as it applies to the Request for Proposal (RFP) requirements. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, below. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each sub-factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 2: Past Performance – the Government will review each offeror’s past performance to determine relevancy and confidence assessment.

Factor 3: Small Business Participation – the Government will evaluate the extent of Small Business Participation for unrestricted acquisitions.

Factor 4: Cost/Price – The resulting award will contain Cost-Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF), Fixed-Price Incentive – Firm (FPIF), Firm Fixed Price (FFP), and Cost Reimbursable (no fee) line items. The Government will use cost realism to evaluate the CPIF effort. The Government will use price reasonableness to evaluate the fixed-price efforts.

M.3. Evaluation Approach All proposals will be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST). The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and sub-factors is as follows:

a. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, terms and conditions, representations and certifications, all threshold requirements of the Sentinel A4 System Performance Specification (MIS-60990) and Interface Design Description, and the information required in Section L of this solicitation in order for the proposal to be compliant and awardable. Failure to comply with all requirements of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation requirements and must provide complete supporting rationale.

b. Adequacy of Response. The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the solicitation. The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine the extent to which it addresses each requirement in accordance with Section L of this solicitation.

c. Feasibility of Approach. The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the results achievable. The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine the extent to which the offeror will be able to complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

d. Risk Assessment. The Government will evaluate the risk inherent in the approach defined in the proposal and the mitigation approaches proposed.

M.3.1. Technical Factor The Technical Factor consists of the following two sub-factors:

Sub-factor 1: System Design and Performance. This sub-factor evaluates the offeror’s proposed design and performance. The evaluation will focus on the following key areas of consideration. Performance is more important than the other areas listed below under sub-factor 1. These other areas are approximately equal to each other in importance. The Government will evaluate the following:

a. Performance – Whether the offeror's proposal contains plausible analytical and simulation evidence to establish the proposed Sentinel A4 system design performance is achievable, with emphasis on electronic attack, Non-Cooperative Target Recognition, sub-clutter visibility, improved engagement support for Cruise Missile and Unmanned Aerial System threat classes, and ability to support engagements for Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar threats. If the offeror proposes additional capabilities beyond the threshold requirements, the Government may consider it a strength in its best value assessment.

Whether the proposal substantiates at least a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 6, including all identified critical technology (CT) elements of the proposed design.

b. Software Architecture – Whether the proposal substantiates the ability to design, develop or reuse, and test the required software function and performance levels for the Sentinel A4. Whether the software architecture supports a Modular Open System (MOSA) approach and how the software design, practices and processes comply with Software Engineering Institute (SEI) Capability Maturity Model (CMM) or CMM Integration (CMMI) level 3-certifed organization compliance level or equivalency.

Whether the offeror’s software design approach for utilizing Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS), Government Off-the-Shelf (GOTS), Army standard hardware and software support systems; common software; Government Furnished Property (GFP), and variation mechanisms enable multiple missions and functions and isolate Critical Program Information (CPI) and critical technology to support abstraction as well as extensibility to future potential foreign military sales.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed approach includes planning for delivery of comprehensive Data Item Description compliant documentation for software requirements, software design, and software architecture. Whether the offeror demonstrates the ability to successfully identify and reuse software source code or software execution elements from other programs similar to the Sentinel A4 Radar. The extent to which the offeror’s approach minimizes Restricted Rights computer software products.

c. System Architecture and Integration – Whether the offeror's proposal contains plausible substantiation that its integration approach will result in successfully converting a Sentinel A3 into a Sentinel A4 within cost and schedule. Whether the offeror’s integration approach addresses all government-mandated GFP integration into its architecture.

Whether the offeror presents a comprehensive risk management approach to include assessment of risk management at the sub-contractor level. Whether the proposal presents a risk management plan that substantiates the offeror identified risks, opportunities, and mitigation approaches and that the risks are specific to the design proposed. Whether the proposal contains adequate program tracking measures and metrics to monitor hardware and software development status and to retire risk.

Whether the offeror's open system architecture approach incorporates a hardware and software MOSA, is thorough, complete, adequate, feasible, and represents an understanding of the RFP requirements. Whether the offeror’s hardware and software MOSA approach is sufficiently well defined and expressed using viewpoint and model syntax such as defined, for example, in the DoD Architecture Framework (DoDAF) Version 2.02. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror's open systems strategy explains the use of proprietary, vendor-unique, or closed components or interfaces, and defines its process for identifying and justifying use of proprietary, vendor-unique or closed interfaces, code modules, hardware, firmware, or software. The offeror shall demonstrate that proprietary elements do not preclude or hinder other component or module developers from interfacing with or otherwise developing, replacing, or upgrading open parts (i.e., both hardware and software line replaceable units) of the system.

The Government will evaluate the extent of which the delivered Technical Data and the offeror’s MOSA and expressed Architecture Framework supports future full-and-open competitive procurements and permits breakout of both hardware and software components for future competitive procurements. The Government will evaluate to what extent the proposal minimizes data restrictions on the delivered Technical Data and computer hardware and software modules and models.

d. System Security Engineering – Whether the proposal substantiates the offeror’s systems security engineering process in specifying and designing a system that prevents loss of advanced technology, malicious insertion, tampering, and supply chain risks. Whether the proposal substantiates the offeror’s CPI identification, mission criticality analysis, vulnerability assessment, risk evaluation, and countermeasure implementation in arriving at its system design. Whether the proposal substantiates the offeror’s secure design and coding practices.

e. Integrated Master Schedule – Whether the offeror has a comprehensive and executable work breakdown and integrated schedule that clearly and properly accounts for contractor tasks, related Government tasks, major acquisition reviews, and the interrelationships from Engineering and Manufacturing Development through Low Rate Initial Production and the First Unit Equipped. A substantiated schedule includes evidence that the schedule is achievable without undue risk or detriment to the broader program. Evidence includes task descriptions, metrics, risk analysis, and results from analogous programs to substantiate the proposed schedule.

Sub-factor 2: System Producibility. This sub-factor evaluates the offeror’s proposed system producibility. The evaluation will focus on the following key areas of consideration, all of which are approximately equally important:

a. Producibility Assessment – Whether the proposal establishes the overall design is producible and maintainable at an acceptable total ownership cost over the systems life cycle.

b. Manufacturing Approach – Whether the proposed program build schedule, operations management approaches, manufacturing facilities and processes, manufacturing quality processes, and tooling management approaches support a low-risk asset delivery schedule. Whether the proposal presents and justifies long-lead parts and materials to meet the required delivery schedule and a low-risk plan to procure these parts and materials. Whether the proposal demonstrates manufacturing readiness by labor skill, certification, and training.

c. Subcontracting and Supply Chain – Whether the proposed subcontractor and supply chain processes and management approaches support a low-risk asset delivery schedule.

d. Assessment to Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) – Whether the proposal demonstrates a minimum MRL 6.

The Technical Factor Ratings, excerpted below, focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, uncertainties, and risks of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical sub-factor requirements.

M.3.2. Past Performance Factor.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the RFP.

a. Evaluation of past performance will be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires provided in the RFP.

b. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. Major subcontractors are members of an offeror’s overall team expected to perform ten (10) percent or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, the Government will require offerors to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past three years) in the proposal.

c. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and its current and past performance under Federal, State or Local Government, or commercial contracts for same or similar efforts. Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past three years prior to the issue date of the RFP, but may include performance data generated during the past three years without regard to the contract award date. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but it is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

d. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history, or when the performance record is so sparse that the Government cannot assign a meaningful confidence assessment rating, the Government will assign the offeror an “unknown confidence rating”, and the Government will not evaluate its proposal either favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

e. RELEVANCY – First, the Government will assess the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort proposed. The Government will not rate Relevancy separately; however, the Government will use the following criteria to establish what is relevant, including similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

f. QUALITY ASSESSMENT – The Government will then assess the quality of the offeror’s past performance on those recent efforts that were determined relevant by determining how well the contractor performed on the contracts. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

g. PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The final step is for the Government to arrive at a single-consensus performance confidence assessment for the offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered. The Government will include the rationale for the conclusions reached.

Performance Confidence Assessments

M.3.3. Small Business Participation Factor The Government will evaluate all offerors (both large and small businesses) on the level of proposed participation of U.S. small businesses in the performance of this acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors).

The Government will evaluate the following using the rating definitions shown:

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

b. The extent of commitment to use such firms (the Government will consider enforceable commitments more favorably than non-enforceable ones)

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

d. The extent of participation of small business prime offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisition

e. The extent of overall management and oversight of subcontractors

f. The extent of evidence (small business utilization) in support of small business goal attainment on similar work effort to ensure realistic and attainable goals.

Description

M.3.4. Cost/Price Factor The resulting award will contain CPIF, FPIF, FFP, and Cost Reimbursable (no fee) line items. The Government will not use adjectival ratings for the offeror’s cost proposal. Instead, the Government will evaluate cost proposals for fairness, reasonableness, compliance, completeness, errors, accounting system, cost realism, and fee.

a. Cost/Price Analysis – The Government will determine probable cost by adjusting each offeror’s proposed cost to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis. The probable cost may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost that is most likely to result from the offeror’s proposal. If the Government’s evaluated cost is less than the proposed, the proposed becomes the probable cost. In determining the total evaluated price, the Government will add its determined probable cost to the offeror’s proposed firm-fixed price and cost reimbursable Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs). If the Government evaluated cost is less than the proposed, the proposed becomes the probable cost. Should the Government determine proposed prices are unrealistically high, unrealistically low (an indication of “buy-in”), or unbalanced, the offer may be considered unacceptable and may be rejected on that basis.

b. Fairness and Reasonableness – For a cost/price to be fair and reasonable, it must represent a cost/price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s cost/price proposal using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404 to determine if it is fair and reasonable. The Government will verify proposed rates and factors with the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), or other cognizant audit agency via rate check or formal audit, as appropriate. In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b), the Government may require submission of Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data to the extent necessary to support a determination of fair and reasonable price.

c. Compliance – The Government will review the cost/price proposal for compliance with the requirements specified in Section L of the solicitation. The Government will assess the offeror’s cost/price proposal and estimates, as appropriate, for completeness, price reasonableness, and cost realism using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404.

d. Completeness – The Government will evaluate the cost/price proposal and Basis of Estimate (BOE) submitted by the offeror for completeness and currency of information based upon the submission requirements contained in the solicitation instructions. In addition, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s price proposal including major subcontractor(s) cost/price information based on the traceability of the cost proposal volume BOEs to the performance of the requirements addressed in the technical proposal.

e. Errors – The Government will review the offeror’s overall cost/price proposal for errors. The Government may give the offeror an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposal at the sole discretion of the contracting officer.

f. Accounting System (CPIF and FPIF) – The cognizant DCMA/DCAA office will verify evidence provided by the offeror of an adequate accounting system for accumulating and reporting incurred costs. If the Government has not audited the offeror’s accounting system to determine adequacy, the Government will request DCMA/DCAA perform a pre-award survey of the accounting system. The offeror must have an adequate accounting system as determined by the DCMA/DCAA prior to award of a CPIF and FPIF contract.

g. Cost Realism (CPIF) – The Government will perform a cost realism analysis on the CPIF CLIN to determine whether specific estimated proposed cost elements are realistic, reflect a clear understanding of contract requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the offeror’s technical proposal. The results of this evaluation will determine the probable cost of performance as it relates to the technical approach proposed by each offeror. The Government will select the offer that provides the best value to the Government. See FAR 15.404-1(d) for a discussion of “cost realism” and “probable cost”. The Government will determine probable cost by adjusting each offeror’s proposed cost to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis. The probable cost may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost that is most likely to result from the offeror’s proposal. If the Government’s evaluated cost is less than the proposed, the proposed becomes the probable cost. The Government will also use cost realism analysis to evaluate the offeror’s understanding of contract technical requirements and the risk associated with the offeror’s technical proposal. Therefore, the Government advises the offeror to justify unique practices that significantly lower costs.

h. Incentive Fee and Profit – The Government will use the offeror’s proposed incentive fee in the development of the Government’s evaluated CPIF. The fee rate shall not exceed the statutory limitation of FAR 15.404-4(c)(4)(i). The Government will use the offeror’s proposed profit in the Government’s evaluated price.

i. Evaluation – The Government will fully evaluate and negotiate all CLINs for award. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all CLINS for a total contract value. Evaluation of option CLINs will not obligate the Government to award more than the base development effort.

image1.jpeg