Attachment_0004_-_Post_Award_Procedures-_Delivery_Orders_0001_0002_and_0...pdf

Post Award Procedures- Delivery Orders 0001, 0002, and 0003

1.0 Overview

This document sets forth the Government’s intention regarding the post award procedures for Delivery Orders 0001, 0002, and 0003. These procedures are provided for informational purposes only. Nothing in this document is binding against the

Government, but is subject to change by the Government at any time. This is not an authorization to begin work and the Government is not liable for any costs that contractors may incur. The Government reserves the right not to issue the orders described below.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Government anticipates issuing the below Delivery

Orders after award:

Order Number

Description Applicable IDIQ CLINs

Award Method

0001 2X User Trials CLINs 0001, 0002, 0003, Issued to all MA IDIQ contract holders.

0002 Operational Assessment

CLINs 0004, Issued to all MA IDIQ contract holders.

0003 Initial Fielding (387 Battalions)

CLINs 0003, 0006, 0007, 0008, 0009

Fair Opportunity Delivery Order, competed amongst all MA IDIQ contract holders.

2.0 Notional Schedule

The below tables lay out the Government’s intention regarding the timing of the below activities by Delivery Order:

Delivery Order 0001

Activity Weeks After

Award

SOW Paragraph

Program Kickoff 2 3.1.8.1

Self-Assessment artifacts due

3 3.1.7.1

UT-1 Test Readiness Review 4 3.1.2

User Trial 1 6 3.1.1, 3.1.3, 3.1.4

Army Interoperability

Certification

10 3.1.5

UT-2 Test Readiness Review 14 3.1.2

User Trial 2 16 3.1.1, 3.1.3, 3.1.4

Functional Configuration

Audit

22 3.1.6

Delivery Order 0002

Award

SOW Paragraph

OT Test Readiness Review 24 3.2.1

Operational Assessment 28 3.2.2

Delivery Order 0003

Award

SOW Paragraph

Request for Delivery Order

Proposal Released

32 3.3

Proposals Due 36 3.3

Fair Opportunity Decision

Made

44 3.3

3.0 Delivery Order 0001

Delivery Order 0001 will be issued to all MA IDIQ contract holders, and will include the below CLINs and quantities.

CLIN Description Quantity

0001 User Trial, inclusive of all support and hardware required for the event. 2

0002 RMF Self-Assessment artifacts 1

0003 Army Interoperability Certification support. 1

0010 Functional Configuration Audit 1

The objective of Delivery Order 0001 is to assess the awarded CD-1 Solutions against the requirements within the full PRD found at Section J Attachment 0001. This will include an assessment of Soldier Usability which will include a period of time of no longer than six (6) weeks before each User Trial, during which the Contractor shall modify and/or tailor its solution as necessary. The User Trials will test and evaluate CD-

1 Solutions in accordance with SOW paragraph 3.1.3 and the User Trial Test and

Evaluation Plan, which will be provided no later than 20 business days prior to the start of User Trials.

3.1

Offerors are cautioned that if a Contractor fails the User Trial evaluation in accordance with the User Trial Test and Evaluation Plan, the Contractor may be off-ramped from the

IDIQ vehicle in accordance with H-3.3.

4.0 Delivery Order 0002

Delivery Order 0002 is intended to be issued to all MA IDIQ contract holders, and will include the below CLINs and quantities.

0004 Operational Assessment Support 1

0005 SCA-V test, follow-on RMF activities 1

The objective of the Operational Assessment is to determine if the proposed solution(s) is/are effective, suitable and survivable in accordance with SOW 3.2 Section J, Attachment 0001. The Operational Assessment includes field tests under realistic combat conditions, and the evaluation of the results of such tests. The Operational

Assessment is evaluated by the Army Test and Evaluation Command. The Operational

Assessment may also test if the proposed solution(s) is/are performing to the requirements of the PRD.

4.1

Offerors are cautioned that if a Contractor achieves an unacceptable Technical Factor rating based on the ATEC report, the Contractor may be off-ramped from the IDIQ vehicle in accordance with H-3.3.

4.2

Results in the ATEC Reports will be used in order to evaluate offerors in the fair opportunity Delivery Order competition.

5.0 Delivery Order 0003 (fair opportunity)

Delivery Order 0003 will be issued as a fair opportunity competition to all MA IDIQ contract holders, and will include the below CLINs and quantities.

0003 Army Interoperability Certification 1

0006 Software Solution Licenses 1,161

0007 Hardware Solution 1,161

0008 Annual Software Maintenance Licenses 1,161(per year, beginning in

Year 3)

0009 Train the Trainer Course 1

The objective of Delivery Order 0003 is to procure initial quantities of the Capability

Drop 1 solution, to include all necessary training, IA support, help desk support, and logistics support necessary to field the solution.

NOTE: The criteria identified below may revised prior to the request for delivery order proposal. The Government reserves the right to utilize other evaluation criteria for this initial competition and for future competitive fielding decisions for additional quantities.

3.1 Basis for Award

The Government’s Delivery Order 0003 decision will be made based on the best overall

(i.e., best value) proposal(s) that are determined to be the most beneficial to the

Government with appropriate consideration given to the three (3) evaluation factors:

Technical, Past Performance, and Price. The Technical Factor is significantly more important than the Past Performance Factor. The Price Factor is significantly more important than the Past Performance Factor. A rating of “acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical Factor to be considered for award. A rating of “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Past Performance Factor to be considered for award. All non-priced factors when combined are significantly more important than Price, and Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest prices offered.

3.2 Factors and Subfactors to be evaluated

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the Offeror(s) whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL: The technical factor is comprised of the following Subfactors:

(a) Subfactor 1- System Usability Score

(b) Subfactor 2- Operational Assessment

An offeror must receive a rating of “Acceptable” for each of the technical subfactors in order to eligible for an award. Subfactor 1 will be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Subfactor 2 will be rated in accordance with criteria stated in J-3.3.1.2. If

Subfactor 1 has been determined to be acceptable, the overall technical factor rating will inherit Subfactor 2’s adjectival rating.

FACTOR 2 PAST PERFORMANCE: Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy, quality, and confidence assessment.

FACTOR 3 PRICE: Contractors may provide downward adjustments in Section B contract line item pricing.

3.3 Evaluation Approach

3.3.1- Technical Factor.

The Technical Factor is divided into the following subfactors

3.3.1.1- Subfactor 1- System Usability Score

Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to deliver a solution that is easy to use, as stated in the Performance Requirements Document

(PRD) (Section J Attachment 0003), based on the outcome of an operational assessment. The Government will evaluate based on issuing System Usability Score

(SUS) surveys to each Soldier operating the CD-1 Solutions. The Government will calculate an average raw SUS score for each Contractor’s CD-1 solution. Each contractor CD-1 solution must exceed a raw average score of 45.4 to be deemed acceptable.

3.3.1.2 Subfactor 2- Operational Assessment

Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to deliver a solution that meets the requirements as stated Performance Requirements Document

(PRD) (Section J Attachment 0003), based on the ATEC report. Approximately 60 days after completion of the Operational Assessment, ATEC will issue a report on each CD-1 solution indicating whether or not it is Effective, Suitable, or Survivable (ESS). The report will also provide assessments of key (select) technical requirements depicted in the PRD that support ATEC’s ESS assessment.

Rating Rating Scale Description

Outstanding Offeror met all PRD requirements evaluated by

ATEC, and was determined to be Effective, Suitable, and Survivable.

Performance met requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements.

Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Offeror met most PRD requirements evaluated by

ATEC, and was

Performance met most requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements.

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation, and achieved an average SUS score of (>45.4).

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and achieved an average SUS score (<45.4).

Rating Rating Scale Description determined to be Effective, Suitable, and Survivable.

Performance contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable Offeror met most PRD requirements evaluated by

ATEC; Any Effectiveness, Suitability, or Survivability shortcomings must be minor and can be addressed through minor technical workarounds or minor changes in Soldier tactics, techniques, or procedures.

Performance met most requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Unacceptable Offeror did not meet most

PRD requirements evaluated by ATEC;

Offeror was assessed as

Not Effective, Not

Suitable, or Not

Survivable, and shortcomings cannot be overcome though minor technical workarounds or minor changes in Soldier tactics, techniques, or procedures.

Performance did not meet most requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Performance is unawardable.

3.3.2 Past performance Factor

Under this factor the Government will evaluate the acceptability of the Offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts, and will assign a rating as follows:

Past Performance Rating

Rating Definition

Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown (see note below).

Unacceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

3.3.3 Price Factor

a. Contractors may provide revised pricing (downward only) for Section B CLINs

(with the exception of CLINs 0001-0002). If an offeror chooses not to propose updated pricing (downward only), the unit prices on contract will be determined to be the offerors proposed prices for the initial fielding decision evaluation and will be utilized to compute a total evaluated price for the offeror. The proposed pricing will be placed into the CD-1 Solution Procurement section of the spreadsheet titled “Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Worksheet”. This revised pricing structure and the computed total evaluated prices will be utilized for the purpose of the CD-1 Solution Procurement evaluation and decision. If an offeror proposes updated prices (downward only), the Offeror shall submit pricing for all line items, quantity ranges and ordering periods in order to be considered for award.

b. Price will be evaluated in order to determine that it is fair and reasonable IAW FAR 15.404, to include ensuring that unbalanced pricing between CLINs is not occurring. Indications of potential unbalanced pricing will be reflected in the pricing report, and an offer may be rejected if the contracting officer (CO) determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.4 Proposal Submission Instructions

3.4.1 Technical Factor

There are no proposal submission requirements necessary of the contractor under the technical factor. The Government will use the results of the ATEC report and SUS

Scores received under Delivery Order 0002.

3.4.2 Past Performance Factor

The contractor shall provide a copy of any Cure Notices, Show Cause Letters, or

CPARs ratings for which an element was rated below “satisfactory”, received from the closing date of the solicitation for the PM-DCGS-A Capability Drop 1 IDIQ contract. The contractor shall provide a copy of any outcome reports relating to any of the aforementioned items.

3.4.3 Price Factor

Contractors may provide an update to the current contract line item prices to reflect any adjustments in price to be considered in this Fair Opportunity competition. (Note: Only downward adjustments in price are allowed). If an updated price proposal is submitted, it shall consist of an entire revised Section B with all contract line items filled in with the updated prices. Offerors shall use attachment ““Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Worksheet” in order to update their information.

If updated pricing is proposed, the Contracting Officer may determine that adequate price competition no longer exists; and Offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine the reasonableness of price.

Catalog Pricing- Relevant offeror commercial catalog, its date, catalog prices, and related discounts. Include an explanation of any differences between the offered price, the established catalog price, and price of recent sales in quantities similar to the proposed quantities.

Market Pricing- Description of the nature of the relevant market and how that market affects the offered price including the source and date or period of any relevant market quotation or other basis for market price, the base market price, and applicable discounts or other price adjustments.

Other evidence of prices charged- Evidence of prices charged other customers under similar circumstances. For example, the firm could provide copies of contracts with other customers to document the prices charged.

Unbalanced Pricing - If the Offerors unit prices appear unbalanced when comparing them from quantity range to quantity range or ordering period to ordering period, the

Offeror shall provide documentation, including calculations and supporting rationale, explaining the apparent unbalanced pricing