Attachment_0005_Section_M.pdf

W58RGZ-17-R-0211

ATTACHMENT 0005

A. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made 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: The Technical factor is further divided into the following sub-factors:

a. Digital System Model (DSM) – Stage One

b. Sensor Alignment – Stage One

c. Schedule – Stage Two

d. Performance – Stage Two

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each sub-factor as it applies to the LIMWS Statement of Work (SOW) and LIMWS System Performance Specification (SPS). A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph B of this section. During the evaluations of each proposal in Stage One, the Government will assign Sensor Alignment and DSM an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the decision. During evaluations of each proposal in Stage Two, findings will be identified as reflected in Table 3. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method as defined in the Source Selection Procedures for DoD dated 31 March 2016.

Factor 2. Cost/Price: The resulting award will be Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) for development/prototypes and Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) for the initial production. Cost realism will be utilized in the evaluation of cost reimbursable efforts. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the FFP efforts.

Factor 3. Past Performance: Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed for relevancy, quality assessment, and performance acceptable/unacceptable assessment.

Factor 4. Small Business Participation: The extent of Small Business Participation will be evaluated for unrestricted acquisitions.

B. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST) consisting of Government personnel, but which may also include non-Government personnel from the following companies:

1. David H. Pollock Consultants, Inc. (DHPC) 10 Woodbridge Center Drive Woodbridge, NJ 07095

2. Science Applications International Corporation, Inc. (SAIC) 1710 SAIC Drive McLean, VA 22102

3. Intuitive Research and Technology 5030 Bradford Drive Building 2, Suite 205 Huntsville, AL 35805

4. LogiCore 360C Quality Circle, Suite 350, Huntsville, AL 35806

5. Dynetics 1002 Explorer Blvd NW, Huntsville, AL 35806

6. MacAulay Brown, Inc.

4021 Executive Dr.

Dayton, OH 45430

7. KBRwyle 100 Quality Cr. NW Huntsville, AL 35806

Non-Government personnel may serve as advisors to the SST, or perform technical evaluations of proposals, but shall not be a voting member of the SST (i.e. assign adjectival ratings) or evaluate the Past Performance factor. Additionally, non-Government personnel may not serve as

(i) chairperson of the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) or of any factor or sub-factor evaluation team of the SSEB, (ii) a member of the Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC), or (iii) as the Source Selection Authority (SSA).

The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and sub-factors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the Request for Proposal (RFP), and specifically the LIMWS System Performance Specification (SPS).

b. Feasibility of Design and Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine that the content and development of the proposed schedule and the performance data submitted is feasible and achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques.

c. Proposal Risk. An inherent consideration during the evaluation of the technical ability, most probable cost and past performance areas is the proposal risk associated with an offerors proposed approach to meeting the Government’s requirements. Proposal risk is integral to each evaluation element within these areas; however, the Government shall assess the risk associated with the offerors overall proposal when determining which proposal offers the best value to the Government. Inconsistencies between an offeror’s technical ability, past performance, or the cost portion of its proposal may indicate risk, which could reduce a proposal’s chance of being selected for award. Proposal risk focuses on the risks, weaknesses and strengths associated with an offeror’s proposed approach. A combined Technical/Risk rating methodology will be utilized, where risk assesses the degree to which the offeror’s proposed technical approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

1. TECHNICAL FACTORS

The Technical factor evaluation process will consist of an analysis of the following sub-factors.

a. Digital System Model (DSM)-Stage One

b. Sensor Alignment-Stage One

c. Schedule-Stage Two

d. Performance-Stage Two

In Stage Two, the Schedule sub-factor is more important than the Performance sub-factor.

Each of the sub-factors will be described more fully in the sections below.

The evaluation will assess and consider, test data substantiating its technical proposal, including its design and its design approach to meeting LIMWS QRC requirements, both generally and specifically with regard to the technical sub-factors detailed in the sections below. Data obtained in a representative LIMWS operational environment will be deemed more relevant and accorded more weight than data obtained under other conditions or in other environments. U.S. Government witnessed test data will be accorded more weight than third-party witnessed test data, contractor test data, and contractor analysis. Third-party (non-U.S. Government) witnessed test data will be accorded more weight than contractor test data and analysis. Contractor test data will be accorded more weight than analysis.

For the Cost-Plus-Fixed Fee (CPFF) Contract Line Item Number (CLINs), the Technical Evaluation Team will analyze the proposed labor skill mix, hours and descriptions for each labor category, material types/quantities, and travel to verify whether they are reasonable for the work to be performed. If indicated from the technical analysis, the Technical Evaluation Team will recommend revisions to the labor mix. The Technical Evaluation Team recommendation will be utilized to determine the probable cost of the offeror’s proposed costs for the CPFF CLINs. This information may also be utilized in the price reasonableness analysis for fixed-price efforts: The Technical Evaluation Team will further review and evaluate the technical skill mix against the cost/price proposal to verify that the cost elements in the technical proposal are the same as those in the cost/price proposal.

Stage One – Acceptable/Unacceptable Sub-factors

a. Digital System Model (DSM) The evaluation will assess whether the offeror’s proposed LIMWS DSM provides the following required capabilities described below. The offeror’s proposed DSM shall:

i. Be integrated with TMAP, EMSIG, and MODTRAN.

ii. Model the offeror’s proposed LIMWS sensor using the proposed sensor’s characterization.

iii. Integrate and incorporate sensor imagery collected from the offeror’s proposed

LIMWS sensor both during flight and ground testing.

iv. Be capable of inserting synthetic and actual missile engagements. The DSM must allow the user to insert missiles either in selected location, or locate missile randomly throughout a scene.

v. Playback both imagery and missile engagements collected during missile firing events.

vi. Be capable of integration with Digital Terrain Elevation Data (DTED)

b. Sensor Alignment The evaluation will assess whether the offeror’s system design meets or exceeds sensor alignment (i.e. non-tail specific system install or transfer alignment) requirements identified in the LIMWS SPS. The evaluation will assess the offeror’s provided test data, analysis and results supporting their approach, assumptions and limitations of their approach, feasibility of the approach as well as impact of sensor alignment residual error to all performance metrics. The offeror’s failure to adequately support assertions made in its proposal, any assumptions made therein, or the feasibility of its design approach with regard to sensor alignment may result in an Unacceptable rating for this sub-factor.

Stage Two – Best Value Trade-Off Evaluation Sub-factors

The Schedule sub-factor is more important that the Performance sub-factor.

c. Schedule A successful schedule is defined as one which accomplishes a first unit equipped (FUE) date in 2Q FY20. A proposed schedule shall include, at a minimum, the events listed in the SOW and those listed below:

i. Preliminary Design Review

ii. Critical Design Review

iii. Delivery of Non Functional Prototypes

iv. Delivery of Functional Prototypes

v. Delivery of Production Units

vi. FUE Proposed dates should allow adequate time for Government testing beginning 12 months after contract award.

This evaluation will consider the offeror’s Integrated Management Plan/Integrated Master Schedule (IMP/IMS) and the dates proposed for all line items to include design reviews, design changes, modifications, repackaging, development, and delivering of non-functional prototypes, functional prototypes, production units, testing (contractor and USG), and reporting to support FUE in 2Q FY20. The Government will evaluate the proposed IMP/IMS for completing all contractual requirements, including the sequence and interrelationships of activities and milestones. The evaluation will consider the critical path as identified in the IMS. The evaluation will consider the offeror’s methodology for managing subcontractor activity performed by major subcontractors or resulting from teaming arrangements. The IMP/IMS evaluation will consider the offeror’s organizational structure; contract administration; resource management; personnel reach back and surge capability; and the relevant experience or qualifications of key/critical technical and management personnel as related to the LIWMS SOW requirements. The evaluation will consider the offeror’s process for identifying, assessing, tracking, and controlling cost/price, schedule, and technical risks. The evaluation will consider the risk to schedule associated with each item presented in the IMS. Experience and qualifications obtained at the offeror’s proposed operational unit level will be considered more important than experience gained at either the divisional or corporate level or any experience of the offeror’s parent or affiliated organizations.

The evaluation will also consider the IMP/IMS based upon the LIMWS SOW requirements as follows:

i. The degree to which the offeror demonstrates the expertise and ability to effectively manage and control the program and deliver quality service and reports/products.

ii. The strength of the proposed Management approach and/or methodology, to include any innovative approaches, novel thought processes employed or any other unique details that demonstrate the ability to successfully perform and manage the effort.

iii. The degree to which the submission is considered logical, realistic and feasible.

iv. The Government's judgment of the probability of successful contract performance if the offeror is selected for award and the risk of achieving schedule milestones.

v. The degree to which the offeror’s technical understanding of requirements effects schedule risk, as demonstrated by the offeror’s qualification of key/critical technical personnel as related to the contract SOW requirements.

vi. The feasibility and risk associated with the offeror’s plan to utilize any existing and future facilities required to perform engineering, manufacturing, and test activities for the LIMWS program at the system and subsystem level. The evaluation will also consider the schedule risk associated with the offeror’s approach for manufacturing, capacity planning, system qualification, availability of long lead items, supply chain and the ability to provide material in time to deliver the prototypes and availability of prototypes and software to support testing. The evaluation will assess the offeror’s proposed manufacturing plan and capability to produce the production representative prototype units on time.

vii. The degree to which the design and maturity of each LRU including hardware and software affects risk to the schedule, including the level of experience with integrating these LRUs.

d. Performance

The evaluation will assess the offeror’s technical understanding of the LIMWS requirements, and the ability to meet or exceed SPS requirements for Probability of Declaration (Pd), False Alarm Rate (FAR), Probability of Cue (Pcue), and False Cue Rate (FCR), while complying with all other requirements and conditions specified in the LIMWS SPS. Further, the evaluation will assess the following:

i. The capability of the offeror’s proposed sensor, processor, and algorithm to meet or exceed the performance requirements of the SPS.

ii. The offeror’s proposed algorithm robustness to spectral, spatial, temporal and plume radiant intensity variability, the angle of arrival accuracy across the sensor field of view under aircraft vibration and flexure, the offeror’s clutter metric definition, clutter metric thresholds, and clutter metric relevance when categorizing scene backgrounds, the relevance of the background scenes used to evaluate Pd as it represents rotary wing’s operational flight envelope, and the offeror’s strategy to recover Pd in very high clutter environment.

iii. The total number of flight hours used by the offeror to assess FAR in the various clutter environments, the aircraft altitude and velocities used for the offeror’s FAR assessment, the FAR of the offeror’s system averaged over a 15 minutes moving average window, and the offeror’s spatial, spectral and temporal strategies to meet and further reduce FAR while maintaining Pd performance.

iv. The offeror’s design approach to integrating the proposed system with the Common Infrared Countermeasure (CIRCM) System, and the strategy to reduce FCR while improving cue timelines.

v. The ability of the system to maintain Pd, Pcue, FAR, and FCR when the system as a whole produces a very large number of detections that must be managed by the processor.

vi. The performance impact of sensor alignment residual error to Pd, Pcue, FAR, FCR.

vii. The offeror’s approach to, and implementation of, open system architecture principles and its plan to meet SPS objective requirements, improve system performance of the over time, and add additional capabilities and reduce system size, weight and power to support future mission requirements.

viii. The offeror’s recognition of assessed risks and the offeror’s proposed strategies to mitigate risk. The Government may consider the quality of the offeror's DSM and the inputs and assumptions behind model data in assessing the risk that the offeror's proposed system performance data is accurate and traceable to expected real-world performance.

2. COST/PRICE FACTOR

a. Cost/Price Analysis:

The contract will consist of Cost-Plus-Fixed Fee (CPFF) and Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs.

Adjectival ratings shall not be used for offeror's cost/price proposal. Instead, cost/price proposals will be evaluated for fairness, reasonableness, compliance, completeness, errors, accounting system, cost realism, and fee for the Offeror proposals. The burden of proof for cost/price fairness, reasonableness, compliance, completeness, and cost realism rests with the offeror. An assessment that the proposal is not fair, reasonable, compliant, complete or realistic will result in the offer being considered unacceptable for award.

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 offerors cost/price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.4 in order to determine if it is fair and reasonable. The proposals will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness. Proposed rates and factors will be verified 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.

c. Compliance:

The cost/price proposal will be reviewed for compliance with the requirements specified in Section L of the solicitation. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon cost/price in the event that the technical, past performance, and small business factors and sub-factors of all the offerors proposals are substantially the same.

d. Completeness:

The cost/price proposal and estimates submitted by the offeror will be evaluated for completeness and currency of information based upon the submission requirements contained in the solicitation instructions. In addition, the offerors cost/price proposal and estimates will be evaluated based on the traceability of the cost proposal volume basis of estimates to the performance of the requirements addressed in the technical proposal.

e. Errors:

The offeror's overall cost/price proposal will be reviewed for errors. The offeror may be given an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposal at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer.

f. Accounting System:

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 offerors accounting system has not been audited to determine adequacy, the DCMA/DCAA will be requested to 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 cost type contract.

e. CPFF CLINs:

(1) Cost Realism:

A cost realism analysis will be performed on the CPFF CLINS to determine whether specific estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed;

reflect a clear understanding of contract requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the offerors 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 and will be utilized in the selection of 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 probable cost will be determined by adjusting each Offerors 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 Governments best estimate of the cost that is most likely to result from the offerors proposal. If the Governments evaluated cost is less than the proposed, the proposed becomes the probable cost. The cost realism analysis will also be used to evaluate the offerors understanding of contract technical requirements and the risk associated with the offerors technical proposal. Therefore, the offeror is advised to clearly show justification for unique practices that significantly lower costs. The probable cost determination for the CPFF CLINs will consist of summing the probable cost of CLINs 0001 - 0003.

(2) Technical Input to Cost Realism Evaluation:

(a) The Government will perform an evaluation of the technical elements contained within the offeror’s cost proposal to perform the SOW in the RFP. The findings of this evaluation will be incorporated into the Probable Cost evaluation. These findings will not be assigned an adjectival rating.

(b) The Government will evaluate the labor, materials, subcontracts, IOTs, travel, and other direct costs proposed to perform the SOW in the RFP.

i. The Government will evaluate the thoroughness of the offeror’s proposal by comparing the proposed basis of estimates (BOEs) to the requirements of the SOW.

ii. The Government will evaluate each BOE worksheet to determine the realism of the estimate therein to perform the applicable SOW requirement. This evaluation will assess the description of the work to be performed; the labor hours by labor category, types and quantities of material, travel (number of trips, locations, length of trips, and number of travelers), and other direct costs (ODC) proposed to perform the work; the basis of the labor, material, travel, and ODC estimates (actual cost history and/or company-unique standards/cost estimating relationships (CERs), and any calculations by which the proposed amounts were determined);

and the timeframe proposed for expenditure of each cost element contained within the BOE.

(3) Fee:

For evaluation purposes the offeror’s proposed fee dollars will be utilized in the development of the Governments probable cost. In accordance with FAR 15.404-4(c) (4)(i)(A), for experimental, developmental, or research work performed under a cost-plus-fixed-fee CLIN(s), the fee shall not exceed 15 percent of the estimated cost of the CLIN, excluding fee.

f. Cost Reimbursable (No Fee) CLINs:

The Cost Reimbursable (No Fee) CLIN 0004 will not be analyzed. The estimated cost ($1M) provided in RFP Section B, which is inclusive of burdens, will be used in the summation of the total evaluated price.

g. FFP CLINs:

(1) For the FFP CLINs (0005 – 0008), the evaluated price will include a determination of price reasonableness based on adequate price competition.

h. Total Evaluated Price:

The Government will fully evaluate and negotiate all CLINs for award. The Total Evaluated Price consists of summing the total probable cost amount for the CPFF CLINs (CLIN 0001- 0003), the RFP stated amount for the CR (no fee) CLIN 0004, and the offeror’s proposed FFP CLIN prices (CLIN 0005-0008). The base program and all option CLINs shall be included in the calculation of the Total Evaluated Price.

3. PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

The evaluation will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain whether the offeror’s past performance is satisfactory for the requirements of the RFP and specifically the LIMWS SPS.

a. Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this section utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Appendix D.

b. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation and SPS requirements, including cost, schedule, performance, management of subcontractors, and compliance with FAR 52.219- 8 and maximizing opportunities for U.S. Small Business Contractors. Major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform $750K 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, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past three (3) years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that an acceptable rating cannot be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned an “unknown rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. 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 their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 334419. Data used in conducting performance acceptable/unacceptable assessments shall not extend past three (3) years prior to the issue date of the final RFP, but may include performance data generated during the past three (3) years without regard to the contract award date.

c. Offerors shall submit three (3) Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and one (1) contract for each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past three (3) years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

d. The past performance factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are three (3) aspects to the past performance evaluation: relevancy, quality assessment, and the overall past performance assessment.

i. RELEVANCY: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the offeror’s past performance to determine if the offeror has accomplished relevant and recent efforts similar to the LIMWS effort to be acquired through this source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Past Performance Relevancy Assessment Assessment Definition

Relevant Present/Past performance effort involved essentially the same, similar or some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

ii. QUALITY ASSESSMENT: The evaluation will then assess the quality of the offeror’s past performance on those recent and relevant efforts by determining how well the contractor performed on the contracts. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

iii. PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT: Based on the quality assessment of relevant past and current performance, the Government will develop a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the offeror, including both a rating and the rationale supporting that rating.

Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Rating Definition

Acceptable

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance is unknown.

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

4. SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION FACTOR:

All Offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated 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:

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 (enforceable commitments will be considered 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 overall management and oversight of subcontractors to include, but not limited to, the subcontracting management plan, management and execution of payments to the subcontractors, and the offeror's process of subcontractor performance oversight and the specific offeror personnel charged with such oversight;

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.

Small Business Participation Factor Rating Definitions

See Table 6. Small Business Rating Method Table as defined in the Source Selection Procedures for DoD dated 31 March 2016.