CSD_Amendment_0004.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this modiif ication is to incorporate the Final DD form 1423 and to incorporate a revised Section M w ith correct numbering.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 20

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W911SR-16-R-0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

05-May-2016

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

U0004

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

CODE

USA CONTRACTING CMD-APG. - W911SR

EDGEWOOD CONTRACTING DIVISION

E4215 AUSTIN ROAD

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD 21010-5401

W911SR 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W911SR-16-R-0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0004

This revised CDRL DD Form 1423 is a confirmed copy of all prior amendment revisions. This version supercedes all previous versions. The highlighted changes reflect Amendment 0004.

The following have been modified:

AMENDMENT 0002

The following Section J attachments have been revised and supersedes all previous versions:

Exhibit A CDRL DD Form 1423 Attachment Attachment 5 CSD Cost Proposal Template

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0004

This revised Section M is a confirmed copy of all prior amendment revisions. This version supercedes all previous versions. The highlighted changes reflect Amendment 0004.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 Evaluation Process

M.1.1 All proposals received pursuant to the Request for Proposal (RFP) will be fully evaluated by a team of Government employees in a careful and impartial manner. All factors against which proposals will be evaluated are described in this section. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is practical and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s methods and approach provide the Government with a high level of confidence of successful completion.

M.1.2 Basis for Award

M.1.2.1 Award will be made to the Offeror(s) whose proposal(s) represents the best value to the Government by applying the tradeoff process described in FAR 15.101-1. Accordingly, the Government may award a resulting contract to other than the lowest evaluated priced Offeror, or to other than the Offeror with the highest technical rating. The basis for award of a contract will be the results of the proposal evaluations of all of the factors set forth herein giving due consideration to the relative order of importance indicated herein. Ultimately, the source selection decision will take into account the Offeror’s capability to meet the requirements of this RFP at a reasonable cost as determined by the best value selection process. The Government intends to award up to three (3) contracts.

M.1.3 Competitive Range

M.1.3.1 The Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) will make the determination as to which proposals are in the “Competitive Range.” Pursuant to FAR 15.306, the PCO shall establish a competitive range comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals based on the ratings of each proposal against the evaluation criteria. The initial number of proposals considered as being within the competitive range may be reduced when, as a result of written or oral discussions, a proposal is determined to no longer have a reasonable chance of being selected for award. The number of most highly rated proposals that might otherwise be included in the competitive range may be limited to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals and IAW Paragraph M.1.2.1 above. If, after discussions have begun, an Offeror originally in the competitive range is no longer considered to be among the acceptable Offerors being considered for award, that Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

M.1.3.2 When a competitive range is established, the Contracting Officer will promptly notify Offerors of any decision to exclude them.

M.1.4 Discussions and Final Offerors

M.1.4.1 In accordance with FAR 15.306, the Government intends to award with discussions. The Contracting Officer will conduct meaningful discussions with all the Offerors within the competitive range.

M.1.5 Final Evaluation of Proposals

During discussions, the Contracting Officer may request or allow proposal revisions to clarify and document understandings reached during negotiations. At the conclusion of discussions, each Offeror still in the competitive range will be given an opportunity to submit a final proposal revision. The Contracting Officer is required to establish a common cut-off date only for receipt of final proposal revisions. Requests for final proposal revisions will advise the Offeror that the final proposal revisions shall be in writing and that the Government intends to make award without obtaining further revisions.

M.2 EVALUATION APPROACH

M.2.1 All proposals will be evaluated to determine the Offeror’s ability to successfully complete the RFP requirements within the required schedule. The evaluation team will use the “Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures,” “The Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3) to the Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures” along with advice and guidance from the PCO to conduct the evaluation. Volume VIII contains Administrative information and will not receive an adjectival or risk rating. All proposals will be evaluated by a team of individuals on the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal meets the RFP requirements using the following evaluation approach:

M.2.1.1 Volume I Technical Approach Factor: The Technical Approach factor will receive an adjectival and a separate risk rating along with a narrative evaluation.

M.2.1.1.1 Volume III Test reports will only be used to assist in the evaluation of the Technical risk and therefore will not receive an adjectival or risk rating.

M.2.1.2 Volume II Support and Ownership Factor: The Support and Ownership factor will receive an adjectival rating and a separate risk rating along with narrative evaluation.

M.2.1.3 Volume IV Past Performance Factor: There are two (2) aspects to the past performance evaluation. The Government will first evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to this effort. A “Past Performance Relevance Rating” will be assigned based on the

Offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the requirements of this solicitation. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. The past performance assessment aspects of the evaluation will be assigned a Past Performance Confidence Assessment.

M.2.1.4 Volume V Program Management Factor: The Program Management factor will receive an adjectival rating and a separate risk rating along with a narrative evaluation.

M.2.1.5 Volume VI Small Business Utilization Factor: The Small Business Participation Plan, which applies to all Offerors, will receive a combined adjectival/risk rating along with a narrative evaluation.

M.2.1.6 Volume VII Cost/Price Factor: The Cost/Price Factor will not receive an adjectival rating but will be evaluated with a narrative for realism, reasonableness, and completeness. The results of the cost realism analysis will determine the probable cost of performance. Probable cost will be used in the final evaluation to determine the final evaluated cost.

M.2.1.7 Volume IX Uncosted Information. The Uncosted information will be used as part of the cost realism evaluation.

M.3 EVALUATION FACTORS.

M.3.1 The Government will conduct all source selections in accordance with FAR Part 15, Source Selection, the DoD Source Selection Procedures, effective 1 July 2011 and the Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3) to the DoD Source Selection Procedures, effective 21 December 2012. Award will be made to the Offeror(s) whose proposal(s) represents the best value to the Government by applying the tradeoff process described in FAR 15.101-1.

M.3.2 Factors and Relative Order of Importance: The evaluation factors include:

Table M-1. Evaluation Factors

Factor Evaluation Factors

1 Technical Approach

2 Support and Ownership

3 Past Performance

4 Program Management

Small Business Utilization -

Small Business Participation Plan

6 Cost/Price

M.3.2.1 Table M-1 lists all factors in descending order of importance. All evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price in accordance with FAR 15.304(e)(1). The Government is willing to pay more if an increase in the technical merit of the proposal justifies. However, the Cost/Price Factor may become more significant in contributing to the source selection decision if competing proposals are technically and programmatically comparable. No award will be made to an Offeror who is required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan IAW FAR 52.219-9 and the plan is determined to be unacceptable.

M.4 RATING SYSTEM.

M.4.1 An explanation of the overall integrated rating system is as follows:

M.4.2 Adjectival Rating. Adjectival ratings will be given to assess the Offeror’s proposed approach, as detailed in its proposal to satisfy the Government’s requirements. The specific adjectival rating used is factor dependent and shall use up to five (5) different ratings. Each factor will receive an adjectival and a separate risk rating along with a narrative evaluation associated with the Offeror’s approach in satisfying the Government’s requirements. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement, through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal. Section M.5 describes the standards used to assign each rating to each evaluation factor. The Adjectival Ratings for the Technical Approach, Support and Ownership, and Program Management Factors are defined below:

Adjectival Ratings

Outstanding – Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

Good – Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements.

Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

Acceptable – Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

Marginal – Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Unacceptable – Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

M.4.3 Risk Rating. The Risk ratings will assess the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed 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 specific risk ratings used is factor dependent. Section M.5 describes the standards used to assign each risk rating to each evaluation factor. The Risk ratings are defined below. The risk ratings will reflect the Offeror’s approach and the number of weaknesses (including significant weaknesses) contained in the Offeror’s proposal. The rating assigned may be the result of the risks associated with the Offeror’s approach (performance risks), the number of weaknesses, which may also include significant weaknesses, in the Offeror’s proposal or a combination of all three. The Risk Ratings for the Technical Approach, Support and Ownership, and Program Management Factors are defined below:

Risk Ratings

Low – Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate – Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High – Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

M.5 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND STANDARDS

M.5.1 The following evaluation criteria establishes those aspects of a proposal that will be evaluated qualitatively to arrive at an integrated assessment of the proposal meeting the Government’s needs as stated in the solicitation. The rating for each factor will be in accordance with the definitions set forth in the DoD Source Selection Procedures and restated in Section M.4 above. The rating describes the baseline level of merit that will be used for measuring how well or whether an Offeror’s response meets the solicitation’s requirements with respect to the evaluation of the factors for merit.

M.5.2 TECHNICAL APPROACH

M.5.2.1 Technical Approach Factor.

M.5.2.1.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed technology, current algorithm capabilities, and algorithm growth.

M.5.2.1.2 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s verification approaches for ensuring the applicable requirements of the PRD, Table 1 in section C.3.1.1.3 of the PWS, are being met by the system design.

M.5.2.1.3 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed major components and approach to integrate onto a M998 HMMWV for Final Prototype Testing. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to detect {and identify} ground liquid/solid contamination while on the move and integrated onto a M998 HMMWV.

M.5.2.1.4 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach for maturing the technology to TRL six (6) as defined in DoD Technology Readiness Assessment Guidance, 13 May 2011, a prototype demonstrated in a relevant environment, over the duration of the CSD TMRR Phase.

M.5.2.1.5 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s development approach to meet the functional characteristics requirements of the CSD PRD as described in Section L.3.1.5 through L.3.1.5.2 including a depiction and the configuration of the proposed CSD for Brassboard and Final Prototyping Tests.

M.5.2.1.6 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s developmental approach that meets the interface and interoperability requirements of the CSD PRD and CCSI.

M.5.2.1.7 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s developmental approach EMD and beyond, technology risks in maturing the system from TLR six (6) to TRL eight (8) as defined in DoD Technology Readiness Assessment Guidance, 13 May.

M.5.2.1.8 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s long term development approach that meets the requirements of the CSD PRD. For proposal purposes, High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP), PRD 3.4.18.2, and Stryker Integration, PRD 3.2.1.3, requirements will not be evaluated.

M.5.2.2 Adjectival Ratings– Technical Approach

M.5.2.2.1 Outstanding – Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

M.5.2.2.1.1. For the purposes of this solicitation, a proposal which contains the following characteristics demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements:

The Offeror's description of the core technology and the detection algorithm currently available are of sufficient maturity to allow prototype development.

The Offeror’s description provides an exceptional system design approach to meet the applicable requirements of the PRD and PWS Section C.3.1.1.3 Table 1 and matures the system to TRL 6.

Minimal or no modification to the M998 HMMWV, at the prototype stage.

The Offeror provides an exceptional approach that matures the system to TRL 6 meets the requirements of the CSD PRD, and exceeds multiple thresholds of the Brassboard and Final Prototype Testing requirements listed in Section L.3.1.5.1 and L.3.1.5.2.

The Offeror provides an exceptional discussion of how the proposed technical approach will meet the detection, identification, and sensitivity threshold requirements of the PRD (TRL 6).

The Offeror’s discussion provides a clear and achievable developmental approach to maturing the system from TRL 6 to TRL 8 as defined in DoD Technology Readiness Assessment Guidance, 13 May 2011 after the TMRR phase through the EMD program.

M.5.2.2.2 Good – Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

M.5.2.2.2.1 For the purposes of this solicitation, a proposal which contains the following characteristics demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements:

The Offeror's description of the core technology and the detection algorithm currently available are of

The Offeror’s description provides a thorough system design approach to meet the applicable requirements of the PRD and PWS Section C.3.1.1.3 Table 1 and matures the system to TRL 6.

Minimal or no modification to the M998 HMMWV, at the prototype stage.

The Offeror provides a thorough development approach that matures the system to TRL 6, meets the requirements of the CSD PRD, and exceeds one (1) or two (2) thresholds of the Brassboard and Final Prototype Testing requirements listed in Section L.3.1.5.1 and L.3.1.5.2.

The Offeror provides a thorough discussion of how the proposed technical approach will meet the detection, identification, and sensitivity threshold requirements of the PRD (TRL 6).

The Offeror’s discussion provides a clear and achievable developmental approach to maturing the system

M.5.2.2.3 Acceptable – Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

M.5.2.2.3.1 For the purposes of this solicitation, a proposal which contains the following characteristics demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements:

The Offeror's description of the core technology and the detection algorithm currently available are of

The Offeror’s description provides an adequate system design approach to meet the applicable requirements of the PRD and PWS Section C.3.1.1.3 Table 1 and matures the system to TRL 6.

Minimal or no modification to the M998 HMMWV, at the prototype stage.

The Offeror provides an adequate development approach that matures the system to TRL 6, meets the requirements of the CSD PRD, and the thresholds of the Brassboard and Final Prototype Testing requirements listed in Section L.3.1.5.1 and L.3.1.5.2.

The Offeror provides an adequate discussion of how the proposed technical approach will meet the detection, identification, and sensitivity threshold requirements of the PRD (TRL 6).

The Offeror’s discussion provides an adequate developmental approach to maturing the system from TRL 6 to TRL 8 as defined in DoD Technology Readiness Assessment Guidance, 13 May 2011 after the TMRR phase through the EMD program.

M.5.2.2.4 Marginal- . Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

M.5.2.2.4.1 For the purposes of this solicitation, a proposal which contains one or more of the following has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements:

The Offeror’s description of the core technology, the detection algorithm currently available, may result in major modification to the M998 HMMWV.

The Offeror’s proposed system design approach does not appear to adequately demonstrate and understanding to meet the applicable requirements of the PRD and PWS Section C.3.1.1.3 Table 1 nor matures the system to TRL 6.

The Offeror does not appear to provide an adequate development approach that matures the system to TRL 6 and will be able to meet most, but not all of the thresholds of the Brassboard and Final Prototype Testing requirements list in Section L.3.1.5.1 and L.3.1.5.2.

The Offeror’s does not provide an adequate discussion of how the proposed technical approach will meet the detection, identification, and sensitivity threshold requirements of the PRD (TRL 6).

The Offeror’s discussion does not provide an adequate developmental approach to maturing the system

M.5.2.2.5 Unacceptable - Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

M.5.2.3 Risk Standards –Technical Approach –

M.5.2.3.1 Low - Offeror’s proposed solution has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

M.5.2.3.1.1 A proposed solution that has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance will be based upon an integrated assessment of the risk associated with the Offeror’s weaknesses associated with this factor as well as any performance risks associated with this factor. Specifically, any weaknesses or potential performance risks relating to this factor have been addressed as follows:

The proposed transition to TRL 6 as defined in DoD Technology Readiness Assessment Guidance, 13 May 2011 has little potential to result in disruption in schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

The risk associated with the Offeror’s discussion of how the proposed technical approach will meet the detection, identification, and sensitivity threshold requirements of the PRD (TRL 6) is minimally affected by the weaknesses or combination of weaknesses contained in the Offeror’s proposal.

The risk associated with the Offeror’s discussion of maturing the system from TRL 6 to TRL 8 as defined in DoD Technology Readiness Assessment Guidance, 13 May 2011 after the TMRR phase through the

EMD program is minimally affected by the weaknesses or combination of weaknesses contained in the Offeror’s proposal.

The proposal is clear and precise, supported, and demonstrates an understanding of the requirements and may be adapted with minimal cost and schedule impacts.

The Offeror’s test reports included a complex matrix of targets, interferents, and backgrounds and has been supported by independent, verifiable data.

The Offeror’s development and verification approach to the interface and interoperability requirements of the CSD PRD, and the proposed design approaches to comply with the Common CBRN Sensor Interface (CCSI) are all thorough and complete.

The proposed approach to integrating the CSD into the M998 HMMWV requires minimal modifications to the vehicle, does not affect other vehicle capabilities, while maintaining CSD performance.

The proposed technology has been tested in an operationally relevant environment.

M.5.2.3.2 Moderate - An Offeror’s proposed solution can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

M.5.2.3.2.1 For the purposes of this solicitation, the Offeror’s proposed solution will be based upon an integrated assessment of the risk associated with the Offeror’s weaknesses, combination of weaknesses, or significant weaknesses as well as any performance risks associated with this factor, as evidenced by one or more of the following:

The proposed core technology and maturity of the algorithm may cause disruption in schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance to transition to TRL 6 as defined in DoD Technology Readiness Assessment Guidance, 13 May 2011.

The risk associated with the Offeror’s discussion of how the proposed technical approach will meet the detection, identification, and sensitivity threshold requirements of the PRD (TRL 6) is affected by the weaknesses, combination of weaknesses, or significant weaknesses contained in the Offeror’s proposal.

The risk associated with the Offeror’s discussion of maturing the system from TRL 6 to TRL 8 as defined in DoD Technology Readiness Assessment Guidance, 13 May 2011 after the TMRR phase through the EMD program is affected by the weaknesses, combination of weaknesses, or significant weaknesses contained in the Offeror’s proposal.

The proposed approach to integrating the CSD into the M998 HMMWV may require extensive modifications to the vehicle or affect other vehicle capabilities.

The Offeror’s development and verification approach to the interface and interoperability requirements of the CSD PRD, and the proposed design approaches to comply with the Common CBRN Sensor Interface (CCSI) may cause disruption in schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

The test reports do not appear to adequately support the Offeror’s proposed technology.

M.5.2.3.3 High – An Offeror’s proposed solution is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

M.5.2.3.3.1 For the purposes of this solicitation, the Offeror’s proposed solution will be based upon an integrated assessment of the risk associated with the Offeror’s weaknesses, combination of weaknesses, or significant weaknesses as well as any performance risks associated with this factor, as evidenced by one or more of the

The proposed transition to TRL 6 as defined in DoD Technology Readiness Assessment Guidance, 13 May 2011 may not be achievable even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring based upon the technology proposed or the maturity of the algorithm.

The risk associated with the Offeror’s discussion of how the proposed technical approach will meet the detection, identification, and sensitivity threshold requirements of the PRD (TRL 6) is significantly affected by the weaknesses, combination of weaknesses, or significant weaknesses contained in the Offeror’s proposal.

The risk associated with the Offeror’s discussion of maturing the system from TRL 6 to TRL 8 as defined in DoD Technology Readiness Assessment Guidance, 13 May 2011 after the TMRR phase through the EMD program is significantly affected by the weaknesses, combination of weaknesses, or significant weaknesses contained in the Offeror’s proposal.

The approach to integrating the CSD into the M998 HMMWV will require extensive modifications to the vehicle or affect other vehicle capabilities.

The development and verification approach proposed by the Offeror will not ensure the applicable requirements of the PRD will be met by the system design.

The Offeror’s development and verification approach to the interface and interoperability requirements of the CSD PRD, and the proposed design approaches to comply with the Common CBRN Sensor Interface (CCSI) may not be achievable even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring

The test reports do not support the Offeror’s narrative.

M.5.3 SUPPORT AND OWNERSHIP

M.5.3.1 Support and Ownership

M.5.3.1.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to design inherent reliability and maintainability and CSD reliability growth during the life of the program. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to demonstrate that the CSD is producible and maintainable over the operational lifetime, including consumables, as defined in the PRD. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s required consumables and required User interaction needed for proper employment of the proposed system.

M.5.3.1.2 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to producibility engineering and design as it relates to achieving the lowest possible production unit cost. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to produce the CSD in future efforts in sustained quantities. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach for quality control of development and production hardware and software.

M.5.3.1.3 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach for Line Replaceable Unit (LRU) identification and maintainability of the CSD including frequency of required consumable changes and calibration. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s use of modular open systems architecture.

M.5.3.1.4 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s representation of Data and Software Rights to assess the risk associated with the Support and Ownership factor. .

M.5.3.1.5 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ILA checklist as it relates to current system and documentation maturity.

M.5.3.2 Adjectival Ratings – Support and Ownership Factor

M.5.3.2.1 Outstanding - Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

M.5.3.2.1.1. For the purposes of this solicitation, a proposal which contains the following characteristics

The Offeror has provided a comprehensive response, which should result in a reliable, maintainable, producible system, which can be sustained in production at a low cost.

The approach to Line Replaceable Unit (LRU) identification and maintainability should result in very low support costs.

User interaction required for proper employment should require minimal impact to the user.

Consumables have been identified and have been minimized to the maximum extent possible while ensuring performance requirements are still met.

The approach to modular open systems architecture is beneficial to the government.

The Offeror’s ILA Checklist is comprehensive and demonstrates an exceedingly high level of system and documentation maturity.

M.5.3.2.2 Good - Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the

M.5.3.2.2.1. For the purposes of this solicitation, a proposal which contains the following characteristics demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements:

The Offeror has provided a thorough response, which should result in a reliable, maintainable, producible system, which can be sustained in production at a low cost.

The approach to Line Replaceable Unit (LRU) identification and maintainability should result in low support costs.

User interaction required for proper employment should not adversely impact the user.

Consumables have been identified and have been minimized while ensuring performance requirements are still met.

The approach to modular open systems architecture is beneficial to the government.

The Offeror's ILA checklist is complete and demonstrates a high level of system and documentation maturity.

M.5.3.2.3 Acceptable - Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the

M.5.3.2.3.1. For the purposes of this solicitation, a proposal which contains the following characteristics demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements:

The Offeror has provided an adequate response, which should result in a reliable, maintainable, producible system, which can be sustained in production at a reasonable cost.

The approach to Line Replaceable Unit (LRU) identification and maintainability should result in reasonable support costs.

User interaction required for proper employment should not adversely impact the user.

Consumables have been identified and may add additional costs but performance requirements will be met.

The approach to modular open systems architecture is acceptable to the government.

The Offeror's ILA checklist is complete and demonstrates an adequate level of system and documentation maturity.

M.5.3.2.4 Marginal - Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach

M.5.3.2.4.1 For the purposes of this solicitation, a proposal which contains one or more of the following has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements:

The Offeror's proposal does not adequately describe an approach and does not provide a complete understanding in the requirements. For the purposes of this factor, a Marginal rating may be assigned as a result of one or more of the following:

The Offeror has not provided a clear understanding of Support and Ownership costs, which would result in a reliable, maintainable, producible system, which can be sustained in production at a reasonable cost.

The approach to Line Replaceable Unit (LRU) identification and maintainability may result in additional burdens to the user or affect sustained performance.

User interaction required for proper employment may affect the user’s ability to accomplish the mission.

The number, availability or the cost of the consumables may increase support costs or place additional logistical burdens on the user. The approach to modular open systems architecture may beacceptable to the government.

The Offeror's ILA checklist may be incomplete or otherwise demonstrates an inadequate level of system and documentation maturity.

M.5.3.2.5 Unacceptable - Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is

M.5.3.3 Risk Standards – Support and Ownership Factor.

M. 5.3.3.1. Risk ratings on this factor may be negatively impacted for proposals to deliver technical data (TD), computer software (CS), computer software(CS) documentation with less than the minimum rights as identified under 52.227-15 and as specified for the Government by applicable statute (10 U.S..C. 2320) and regulation (DFARS 252.227-7013 and 252.227-7014. For noncommercial acquisitions, these rights include: Unlimited Rights in TD (as specified in DFARS 252.227-7013(b)(1)) and CS and computer software documentation (as specified in DFARS 252.227-7014(b)(1)); Limited Rights in TD (as specified in 252.227-7013(b)(3)); and Restricted Rights in CS (as specified in DFARS 252.227-7014(b)(3)).

M.5.3.3.2 Low- Offeror’s proposed solution has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

M.5.3.3.2.1 A proposed solution that has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance will be based upon an integrated assessment of the risk associated with the Offeror’s weaknesses associated with this factor as well as any performance risks associated with this factor. Specifically, any

There is no impact associated with the TD, CS or CS documentation as described above in M.5.3.3.1.

The quality control practices and processes in place minimize any potential development or production issues.

M.5.3.3.3 Moderate –An Offeror’s proposed solution can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

M.5.3.3.3.1 For the purposes of this solicitation, the Offeror’s proposed solution will be based upon an integrated assessment of the risk associated with the Offeror’s weaknesses, combination of weaknesses, or significant weaknesses as well as any performance risks associated with this factor, as evidenced by one or more of the

The TD, CS or CS documentation rights described in M.5.3.3.1 may adversely affect the proposed cost or schedule.

The Offeror’s approach to quality control practices and processes may adversely affect the reliability, maintainability or sustainability and may impact development or production.

M.5.3.3.4 High - An Offeror’s proposed solution is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

M.5.3.3.4.1 For the purposes of this solicitation, the Offeror’s proposed solution will be based upon an integrated assessment of the risk associated with the Offeror’s weaknesses, combination of weaknesses, or significant weaknesses as well as any performance risks associated with this factor, as evidenced by one or more of the

TD, CS or CS documentation rights described in M.5.3.3.1 will likely adversely affect the proposed cost or schedule.

The Offeror’s approach to quality control practices and processes will likely adversely affect the reliability, maintainability or sustainability and may impact development or production.

M.5.4 PAST PERFORMANCE

M.5.4.1 Past Performance Factor

M.5.4.1.1 The first aspect of the Government’s past performance evaluation is whether the Offeror’s present/past performance is recent and relevant to the solicitation requirements. The burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

M.5.4.1.2 The Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated to determine how recent the effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the solicitation requirements. “Recent” means any contract under which any performance, delivery, or corrective action has taken place within the last five (5) years of the issuance of this solicitation.

“Recent” means any contract under which any development, design or manufacturing has taken place within the last five (5) years of the issuance of this solicitation. “Relevant” means performance that demonstrates the Offeror has developed, designed, or manufactured a chemical detection system.

M.5.4.1.3 The Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated to determine how relevant the effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the solicitation requirements. In regards to relevancy the Government will review those aspects of an Offeror’s contract history that will provide the greatest ability to measure whether the Offeror will satisfy the solicitation requirements. Aspects of relevancy that will be reviewed are similarity of service/support to the solicitation requirements; complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontracting/teaming.

M.5.4.1.4 The second aspect of past performance will be an assessment of how well the Offeror performed. The Government will make this assessment based on whether the Offeror:

M.5.4.1.4.1 Provided a quality product or service in terms of technical performance for compliance with previous contract requirements, accuracy of reports, and technical excellence.

M.5.4.1.4.2 Performed timely in terms of meeting milestones, reliability, responsiveness to technical guidance, deliverables completed on-time, and adherence to contract schedules (including contract administration).

M.5.4.1.4.3 Controlled cost in terms of performing within or below budget, use of cost efficiencies, relationship of negotiated costs to actual costs, submission of reasonably priced change proposals, and providing current, accurate, timely, and complete billing.

M.5.4.1.4.4 Conducted business relations in terms of providing effective management, demonstrating a cooperative and proactive behavior, being responsive to inquiries, resolving problems, and satisfying the customer.

M.5.4.1.5 In accordance with DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the Past Performance Evaluation will include the evaluation of the Offerors record of efforts to comply with 52.219-8 "Utilization of Small Business Concerns" and 52.219-9 "Small Business Subcontracting Plan."

M.5.4.1.6 The Government may utilize past performance information from other sources than those identified by the Offeror (i.e., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)).

M.5.4.2 Relevancy Rating Definition- Past Performance.

M.5.4.2.1 Very Relevant. Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

M.5.4.2.2 Relevant. Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

M.5.4.2.3 Somewhat Relevant. Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

M.5.4.2.4 Not Relevant. Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

M.5.4.3 Adjectival Rating Definition- Past Performance.

M.5.4.3.1 The Past Performance Factor will receive one of the following adjectival ratings, which will define performance confidence.

M.5.4.3.2 Substantial Confidence. Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

M.5.4.3.3 Satisfactory Confidence. Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

M.5.4.3.4 Limited Confidence. Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

M.5.4.3.5 No Confidence. Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

M.5.4.3.6 Unknown Confidence (Neutral). No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

M.5.5 Program Management (PM)

M.5.5.1 Program Management Factor

M.5.5.1.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall Program Management approach to meet the requirements of the PWS. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to managing the project within cost and schedule constraints. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach for managing the technical and schedule risks associated with the requirements and develop risk mitigation strategies.

M.5.5.1.2 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s IMS defining the Offeror’s proposed time phasing of detailed tasks for the contracted effort, including dates and time frames for all contract tasks, milestones, reviews, and deliverables. For evaluation purposes, the IMS shall be defined in days after contract award, not by a specific calendar date.

M.5.5.1.3 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s plan to support Government conducted testing as detailed in the PWS paragraph C.3.1.6. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s plan for the construction and delivery of the Brassboard and Final Prototypes, including the identification and procurement of long lead items. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s planned personnel (operator, technician, repair, etc.) and support equipment (spare parts, diagnostic equipment, etc.) required to support each TMRR Test phase IAW the PWS. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to how any classified information provided by the Government or generated during testing would be protected, processed, and stored.

M.5.5.1.4 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s plan for developing and providing the data deliverables delineated on the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), DD Forms 1423.

M.5.5.1.5 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach for the development, documentation, and configuration management of technical data to include the CSD drawings, interface documentation, software specifications, software source code, and production documentation.

M.5.5.2 Adjectival Standards – Program Management

M.5.5.2.1 Outstanding - Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

M.5.5.2.1.1 For the purposes of this solicitation, a proposal which contains the following characteristics

The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the CSD PWS requirements and presents a complete and comprehensive plan to include configuration management of technical data, protection of classified information and development and delivery of contractual deliverables and schedule that demonstrate an ability to effectively manage the effort.

The Offeror’s proposal reflects a well-integrated approach, which should result in highly effective performance within cost and schedule constraints.

The Offeror’s approach has considered potential impediments to successful completion and properly addressed these within the proposal.

The Offeror provides a superior plan for prototype construction and supporting the CSD testing, to include personnel to support testing, in the PWS including the approach of maintaining and repairing the systems as required.

M.5.5.2.2 Good – Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the

M.5.5.2.2.1 For the purposes of this solicitation, a proposal which contains one or more of the following characteristics demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements:

The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a thorough understanding of the CSD PWS requirements and presents a complete and comprehensive plan to include configuration management of technical data, protection of classified information and development and delivery of contractual deliverables and schedule that demonstrate an ability to effectively manage the effort.

The Offeror’s proposal reflects a well-integrated approach, which should result in effective performance within cost and schedule constraints.

The Offeror’s approach has considered potential impediments to successful completion and properly addressed these within the proposal.

The Offeror clearly describes their plan to build prototypes and support the CSD testing, to include personnel to support testing, in the PWS including the approach of maintaining and repairing the systems as required.

M.5.5.2.3 Acceptable - Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the

M.5.5.2.3.1 For the purposes of this solicitation, a proposal which contains the following characteristics demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements:

The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates an adequate understanding of the CSD PWS requirements and presents a complete and comprehensive plan to include configuration management of technical data, protection of classified information and development and delivery of contractual deliverables and schedule that demonstrate an ability to manage the effort.

The Offeror’s proposal reflects an integrated approach which should result in satisfactory performance within cost and schedule constraints

The Offeror describes their plan to build prototypes, support the CSD testing, to include personnel to support testing, and maintain and repair the systems is adequate as required.

M.5.5.2.4 Marginal - Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach

M.5.5.2.4.1 For the purposes of this solicitation, a proposal which contains one or more of the following characteristics does not demonstrate an…