SECTION M

SECTION M -- EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

(1) Pursuant to FAR 52.252-1, "SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE," the following provisions are incorporated herein by reference.

I. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (1990 EDITION) (48 CFR CHAPTER 1) SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

PARAGRAPH TITLE

52.215-34 EVALUATION OF OFFERS FOR MULTIPLE AWARDS (MAR 1990)

52.217-3 EVALUATION EXCLUSIVE OF OPTIONS (APR 1984)

52.247-47 EVALUATIONF.O.B. ORIGIN (APR 1984)

II. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUPPLEMENT (1991 EDITION) (48 CFR CHAPTER 2) CLAUSES: NONE ARE APPLICABLE

1.0 GENERAL BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

The Government will conduct a source selection to evaluate proposals in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.6 and Air Force FAR Supplement Appendix AA and supplements as applicable. The Government intends to award multiple contracts in response to this solicitation. Contract awards will be made to those Offerors whose proposals, based on an integrated assessment of the Source Selection Authority (SSA), conform to the solicitation requirements, who are deemed responsible under FAR procedures, who demonstrate the technical, management, and financial capabilities necessary to meet the objectives defined in the Statement of Objectives (SOO) and reflected in the evaluation criteria specified in this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to select an offer that is not the lowest priced, technically acceptable offer, but instead select a higher priced offer that represents the "best value" to the Government. The Government reserves the right not to award any contracts.

The Government also reserves the right to award without discussions; therefore, Offerors are encouraged to reflect their best effort in the initial proposal. Offerors must recognize that the subjective judgment of the Government evaluators is implicit in the evaluation process. Throughout the evaluation, the Government will consider "corrective potential" when a deficiency is identified. Proposals unrealistic in terms of technical capability, cost/price, or schedule commitments may be rejected as indicating a lack of understanding of the complexity and risks of the requirements.

The Government intends to evaluate the Offeror's proposed efforts specifically identified for the Risk Reduction phase but will consider the capabilities of the Offeror's ability to execute the Detailed Design and Fabrication phase. The criteria to be used for the downselect is specified in Section H of this solicitation.

The evaluation of the Technical and Management Areas will be based on the proposal volumes, the Offeror's CWBS, Integrated Master Plan (includes the Statement of Work), Integrated Master Schedule, and Offeror proposed changes to the CDRL. These areas will be used to evaluate how well the Offeror understood and addressed the objectives and requirements of the RFP (SOO and SRD).

Past performance of the Offeror will be considered equally with the proposal rating and proposal risk assessments as part of the Source Selection Authority's (SSA) decision. The Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) will be used along with other recorded data at the SSA's prerogative in the determination of how the Offeror has performed on their previous contracts. This data is compiled by the program office responsible for the execution of the contract. Performance data up to five years old at the time of RFP release will be used in determining the Offeror's ability to perform work proposed in their proposal.

Cost or price will be a part in the SSA's integral assessment decision and will contribute to the source selection decision. Offerors should perform technical-cost tradeoffs to achieve a balance that reflects and permits the cost effective pursuit of high quality performance and supportability. The basis of the proposed cost must be compatible with all other elements of the proposal. No advantage will accrue to an Offeror who submits an unrealistically low cost proposal. Such a proposal may be viewed as indicative of a lack of understanding of the Government's objectives.

2.0 SPECIFIC CRITERIA

Each Offeror's proposal will be evaluated against the Areas and Factors as follows:

Area 1: Technical Approach

Factor 1: Performance Against EDR Requirements

Factor 2: Flexibility for Growth and Technology Insertion

Factor 3: System Engineering and Performance Assurance

Factor 4: Sensor and Sensor Subsystem Design

Factor 5: Risk Identification and Mitigation

Factor 6: Algorithm Development

Area 2: Management Approach

Factor 1: Program Management

Factor 2: Risk Management

Factor 3: Cost As An Independent Variable (CAIV) Methodology and Cost Control

Factor 4: Program Execution

Area 3: Cost

Factor 1: Realism, Completeness and Reasonableness of Instant Contract Cost

Areas 1 (Technical Approach) is first in importance, Area 2 (Management Approach) is second in importance, Area 3 (Cost) is significantly less important than either Areas 1 and 2. In Area 1, Factor 1 and 6 are equal to each other and first in importance, the remaining four factors are equal to each other and second in importance. In Area 2, the factors are all equal. General considerations, discussed in paragraph 7.0, are last in importance.

3.0 AREA RATINGS

3.1 Rating of Area 1 and 2. All Factors within Area 1 and 2 are rated in two ways: a proposal rating and a proposal risk assessment. Each Area will also be given a performance risk assessment. Within each Area and/or Factor, the proposal rating, proposal risk assessment, and performance risk assessment shall be given equal consideration in making the integrated source selection decision

3.1.1 Proposal Rating. For each Factor, a color rating will be assigned that depicts how well the proposal meets the evaluation standards. As a basis for assessing these factors, the Government will use the assessment criterion "soundness of approach." This assessment criterion addresses the Offeror's understanding of, approach to satisfying, and complying with the requirements of the solicitation. The color ratings will be in accordance with AFFARS Appendix AA.

3.1.2 Proposal Risk Assessment. For each Factor, the Government will assign a proposal risk rating that assesses the risk associated with the Offeror's proposed approach in accomplishing the requirements of this solicitation. The adjectival ratings will be in accordance with AFFARS Appendix AA

3.1.3 Performance Risk Assessment. For each Area, contractor and subcontractor past and current performance and experience will be evaluated by the Performance Risk Assessment Group (PRAG) and will be the basis for the performance risk assessment and rating. Performance risk assesses the probability of the Offeror successfully accomplishing the proposed effort based on the Offeror's relevant demonstrated present and past performance (including major/critical subcontractors, associates or teaming arrangements). When assessing past and current performance, the government will focus its inquiry on the performance of the Offeror and its proposed subcontractors as it relates to all solicitation requirements, such as cost, schedule, and performance. Past experience will be assessed by considering the recency and relevancy of the work. In assessing this risk, the Government will use both data provided by the Offeror and data obtained from other sources. This may include a pre-award survey and site visits. The adjectival ratings will be in accordance with AFFARS Appendix AA.

3.2 Rating of Area 3. The cost proposals will be evaluated for realism, reasonableness and completeness. The cost area, evaluated as described in para 6.0, will also receive a performance risk rating that will consider the evaluated price in making the integrated selection decision. For purposes of award, the proposals will be evaluated by considering the instant contract cost. Cost proposal risk will be evaluated at the area level after assessment of the Government's "Most Probable Cost" estimates with the proposals.

4.0 AREA 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH

This paragraph presents a general description of the factors for the Technical Approach Area that were generated to frame the evaluation of the five (5) sensor and algorithm development proposals in response to this solicitation. These factors represent the topic areas that the Offerors proposal will be evaluated on. Paragraph 4.2 contains the specific evaluation standards for each sensor which will be used for the evaluation of these factors.

4.1 Factors

4.1.1 Factor 1: Performance Against EDR Requirements. The Offeror's approach to EDR requirement satisfaction, both in the specific SRD and in other SRDs. The Offeror will be evaluated on:

  1. feasibility and viability of proposed conceptual design and its satisfaction of suite specific SRD threshold requirements
  2. ability of proposed conceptual design to exceed suite specific SRD threshold requirements
  1. ability of conceptual design to contribute to, or satisfy EDRs in other sensor suite SRDs
    1. adequacy of the justification for those EDR thresholds, if any, the Offeror believes cannot be cost effectively achieved

4.1.2 Factor 2: Flexibility for Growth and Technology Insertion. The Offeror's approach to developing a sensor design that provides the ability and flexibility to incorporate requirement changes and new technologies. The Offeror will be evaluated on:

  1. the sensor conceptual design's capability to accommodate changes in program requirements
  2. plans for development and evaluation of new or alternative technologies
  3. ability of the conceptual design to rapidly accommodate new technology and plans for technology insertion

4.1.3 Factor 3: System Engineering and Performance Assurance. The Offeror's approach to developing the sensor/algorithm functional baseline and how the engineering design and development process will verify the attainment of technical performance requirements and objectives. The evaluation will include an assessment of:

  1. approach and processes for requirements analysis, allocation, tracking, and closure
  2. adequacy of the methodologies, criteria, and processes proposed to translate sensor functional baseline into a preliminary design, evaluating those alternative designs, selecting the optimal approach, and developing the sensor design.
  3. appropriateness of the trade issues under consideration
  4. approach to evaluating alternative architectures
  6. understanding of the proposed spacecraft-sensor interfaces, and the adequacy of the process to manage spacecraft/sensor allocations and interfaces
  7. impact of sensor conceptual design on spacecraft and ground interfaces
  8. approach for flight and ground software development and validation
  9. adequacy of the test and evaluation philosophy/methodology to verify that the level of performance specified for the design is achieved
  10. adequacy of methodologies, models and other techniques proposed for use to ensure the design of a system is able to meet performance requirements, and to be used to establish and verify performance levels of the operational sensor

4.1.4 Factor 4: Sensor and Sensor Subsystem Design. The Offeror's ability to satisfactorily accomplish the tasks necessary to implement sensor suite and sensor subsystem designs. The Offeror will be evaluated on:

  1. identification and the process to select mission critical components, and concepts for reducing reliance on parts that are not readily available "off the shelf" items
  2. adequacy of approach for calibration, and plans to deal with degradation of calibration components and long term stability requirements
  3. identification of life sensitive components and ways in which designs will be accomplished to meet lifetime requirements
  4. demonstrated knowledge, familiarity, and selection of sensor elements, components and subassemblies for brassboard/breadboards and test beds, and the plans to use them to assess system performance, help with risk reduction, and other design and development activities.
  5. adequacy of hardware and software integration and test to ensure the instrument provides the required data and that its operation agrees with design expectations
  6. For CrIS only, understanding of subsystem components/technology and proposed approach to subsystem design
  7. For GPSOS only, understanding of interface issues, integration of the sensor with the spacecraft, and RF performance

4.1.5 Factor 5: Risk Identification and Mitigation. The Offeror's approach to technical risk reduction. The Offeror will be evaluated on:

  1. adequacy and efficiency of approach to identifying and defining the risk reduction areas and proposed risk reduction program
  2. approach to and proposed use of hardware test programs (i.e. breadboards and brassboard configurations, environmental and functional tests of critical subsystems, prototype development tests, etc.) to reduce risk
  3. approach and plans to apply risk reduction activities results

4.1.6 Factor 6: Algorithm Development. The Offeror's ability to satisfactorily obtain suitable existing or develop new algorithms that, with defined sensor suites and auxiliary input data and implement them to provide environmental and sensor data records: The evaluation will include an assessment of:

  1. understanding of scientific basis for algorithms that will meet/exceed EDR requirements and the input data attributes required to produce these EDRs.
  2. approach and capability to perform algorithm development, including understanding of retrieval methodologies
  3. proposed use and integration of externally developed algorithms
  4. understanding of the steps required to convert sensor measurements into sensor data records
  5. understanding of performance degradation as inputs required for "full performance" are degraded or not available, such as with field terminal processing approaches as contrasted with processing at centrals
  6. approach used to verify total algorithm performance

  1. Specific Evaluation Standards

The evaluation of the Technical Area (using the specific evaluation standards for each sensor listed in the following paragraphs) will be based on the proposal volumes, the Offeror's CWBS, Integrated Master Plan, Integrated Master Schedule, and Offeror proposed changes to the CDRL. The CWBS, IMP, and IMS must contain sufficient tasks and program planning information to perform the work proposed.

4.2.1 VIIRS Technical Evaluation Standards

4.2.1.1 Factor 1: Performance Against EDR Requirements.

This standard is met when the Offeror:

  1. Provides a conceptual design and algorithms approach that can plausibly meet (or exceeds, if applicable) all threshold requirements of the VIIRS primary EDRs as given in the VIIRS SRD for a broad and representative range of environmental conditions.
  2. Defines a conceptual design which is both feasible and viable in terms of the proposed NPOESS system performance
  3. Adequately describes what data, GFE or other resources, is required from other NPOESS sensor suites and/or other (ground) sensors or data bases in order to achieve the stated EDR performance
  4. Describes what contributions the VIIRS can make to EDRs that are primary for other sensor suites
  5. Demonstrates thorough understanding of performance against EDR requirements

4.2.1.2 Factor 2: Flexibility for Growth and Technology Insertion

This standard is met when the Offeror:

  1. Identifies how specific elements of the conceptual design have capability to accommodate changes in the program requirements
  2. Quantifies the impacts on the conceptual design of incorporating new technology to enhance performance and/or lower risk with minimal or no redesign
  3. Quantifies and documents sensor and EDR performance impacts in support of proposed plans for monitoring and evaluating new or alternative technologies, and studies and plans for technology insertion with appropriate associated technical and schedule risks
  4. Demonstrates how the proposed conceptual design can incorporate evolutionary development of new algorithms and the resulting impact on EDR performance
  5. Demonstrates thorough understanding of flexibility for growth and technology insertion

4.2.1.3 Factor 3: System Engineering and Performance Assurance

This standard is met when the Offeror:

  1. Defines adequate approach and processes for requirements analysis, flowdown, allocation, tracking, and closure.
  2. Demonstrates the methodologies, criteria, and processes to be used to translate sensor performance requirements into alternative design architectures, evaluating those alternatives, selecting the optimal approach, and developing the sensor design
  3. Identifies key trades and provides supporting rationale
  4. Exhibits an understanding of the proposed spacecraft-sensor interfaces, and an adequate process to manage spacecraft-sensor allocations and interfaces
  5. Addresses impact of sensor conceptual design on spacecraft and ground interfaces
  6. Defines a test and evaluation program that adequately supports performance assurance
  7. Demonstrates thorough understanding of system engineering and performance assurance

4.2.1.4 Factor 4: Sensor and Sensor Subsystem Design

This standard is met when the Offeror:

  1. Describes an adequate process for identifying mission critical components, and concepts for reducing reliance on parts that are not readily available "off the shelf" items
  2. Demonstrates the adequacy of approach for calibration, and plans to address degradation of calibration components and long term stability requirements
  3. Describes an adequate process for identifying life sensitive components and an adequate design approach for meeting lifetime requirements
  4. Demonstrates the adequacy of hardware integration and test to ensure the sensor suite provides the required data and that its operation is consistent with design expectations and meets requirements
  5. Describes a process for generating robust designs that minimize complexity and development risk, and facilitates testablitilty for diagnostic evaluation and performance verification
  6. Demonstrates a thorough understanding of sensor and sensor subsystem design.

4.2.1.5 Factor 5: Risk Identification and Mitigation.

This standard is met when the Offeror:

  1. Describes a satisfactory, systematic approach to identifying and defining risk reduction areas and tasks
  2. Adequately describes the approach to and proposed use of hardware test to reduce risk (i.e. breadboards and brassboard configurations, environmental and functional tests of critical subsystems, prototype development tests, etc.)
  3. Adequately describes the approach and plans to apply results of risk reduction activities to design
  4. Demonstrates thorough understanding of risk identification and mitigation

4.2.1.6 Factor 6: Algorithm Development

This standard is met when the Offeror:

  1. Demonstrates an adequate understanding of the scientific basis for algorithms that will meet EDR requirements and the input data attributes required to produce these EDRs
  2. Defines an adequate approach and capability to perform algorithm development
  3. Defines an effective approach for proposed use and integration of existing or externally developed algorithms
  4. Demonstrates an adequate understanding of EDR performance degradation resulting from incomplete or degraded input data, as might be the case at a field terminal, and of field terminal algorithms and processing approaches as contrasted with those used at centrals
  5. Details the methodology and process for validation of algorithm performance
  6. Demonstrates thorough understanding of algorithm development

4.2.2 CMIS Technical Evaluation Standards

4.2.2.1 Factor 1: Performance Against EDR Requirements

The standard is met when the Offeror:

  1. Demonstrates that the proposed conceptual design will satisfy all assigned EDRs as a minimum at the threshold requirement,
  2. Provides a comprehensive list of materials and/or information (data) required from other sources for EDR preparation,
  3. Discusses the approach to be used to provide data to other sensors for Secondary EDRs,
  4. Discusses any potential contributions to other EDRs not assigned as Primary or Secondary,
  5. Demonstrates a thorough understanding of performance against EDR requirements.

4.2.2.2 Factor 2: Flexibility for Growth and Technology Insertion

The standard is met when the Offeror:

  1. Demonstrates that the proposed design is able to accommodate changes arising from factors external to the design process,
  2. Describes an effective and practical approach for the identification of new or alternative technologies,
  3. Describes suitable methodology for evaluating technologies which may increase sensor performance from threshold requirements, improve spacecraft accommodation, and/or reduce cost,
  4. Demonstrates that the design process and the proposed design are able to accommodate the insertion of new technologies,
  5. Demonstrates a through understanding of flexibility for growth and technology insertion.

4.2.2.3 Factor 3: Systems Engineering and Performance Assurance

The standard is met when the Offeror:

  1. Demonstrates that the requirements flowdown methodology will properly translate EDR requirements into hardware design requirements, and the Offeror provides an example of this process by using an assigned CMIS EDR,
  2. Describes an effective process which will be used to identify and track the status of requirements specified in the SRD and IRD,
  3. Describes an effective approach for performing trade studies, and presents appropriate evaluation criteria,
  4. Discusses what parameters drive the design of the sensor, why and the rational for taking the approach selected,
  5. Describes any alternative concepts which may be under consideration for the instrument's design, and discusses the advantages and disadvantages of each concept,
  6. Demonstrates that the Offeror is aware of the major spacecraft-sensor interface issues, and presents effective management procedures to ensure that they are tracked and managed during the development and fabrication processes,
  7. Demonstrates realistic estimates of spacecraft accommodation requirements (mass, power, data, field of view, etc.), and provides reasonable margins to accommodate growth within SRD allocations,
  8. Identifies unique requirements which will be placed on the spacecraft, launch vehicle or the integration facility,
  9. Specifies requirements for GSE which are reasonable,
  10. Demonstrates the effectiveness of the software development process, and validation and verification procedures,
  11. Demonstrates familiarity with test requirements and test procedures for spaceborne hardware,
  12. Demonstrates that the test program will comply with NPOESS Program test requirements, and/or identifies acceptable rationale for exceptions,
  13. Demonstrates an adequate understanding of processes used to simulate end-to-end performance of microwave systems,
  14. Demonstrates suitable knowledge of microwave components and assembled systems, and the techniques used to align, test and calibrate their operation and verify performance,
  15. Demonstrates a thorough understanding of systems engineering and performance assurance.

4.2.2.4 Factor 4: Sensor and Sensor Subsystem Design

The standard is met when the Offeror:

  1. Identifies components which are considered mission critical, the rationale for their criticality, and describes the methods proposed to ameliorate the impact of their criticality,
  2. Demonstrates an adequate calibration concept using external and/or internal calibration sources and techniques to ensure that accurate, long term ground and flight calibration is performed. If polarimeteric channels are a part of the design, the Offeror must demonstrate a concept for their calibration,
  3. Discusses specific areas where component lifetimes are a concern, the impact which the limited life components have on the CMIS design and on cost, and discusses plans for the use of redundancy (or other ameliorating techniques) for life-limited components, or components whose performance may change/degrade during the lifetime of CMIS,
  4. Identifies the components/subsystems which are candidates for breadboard/brassboard/testbed activities, the reasons why those components/subsystems were selected, the results expected to be obtained from those developments, and how those results will be integrated into the design and development activities,
  5. Demonstrates a sound approach for screening/testing new, state-of-the-art components, or components which have not been qualified for space use,
  6. Demonstrates a thorough understanding of sensor and sensor subsystem design.

4.2.2.5 Factor 5: Risk Identification and Mitigation

The standard is met when the Offeror:

  1. Identifies CMIS's major risk categories, why they were selected, and the proposed methods to mitigate those risks,
  2. Identifies a reasonable process for establishing hardware and algorithm design and performance objectives, a rational for selecting the specific efforts, the work proposed to be undertaken, and appropriate criteria against which to judge acceptable performance,
  3. Demonstrates that improvements to the sensor baseline design may result from the proposed activities,
  4. Demonstrates a thorough understanding of risk identification and mitigation.

4.2.2.6 Factor 6: Algorithm Development

The standard is met when the Offeror:

  1. Presents an adequate methodology for identifying, evaluating, selecting and/or developing EDR algorithms. If the Offeror's proposal identifies a need for inputs from other sensors, the methodology should address this requirement. The proposal should also discuss any inter-relationship of EDRs which the Offeror has identified.
  2. Presents adequate procedures to manage and document the development and/or modification of algorithms,
  3. Identifies any specific models by name, which are planned to be used in the algorithm modification/development process,
  4. Discusses anticipated retrieval accuracies, sources of error and uncertainties,
  5. Demonstrates an adequate approach for the integration and use of externally developed retrieval algorithms,
  6. Demonstrates an adequate approach for identifying, evaluating, selecting, and/or developing sensor data record algorithms, and provides a detailed flow of how the data will be processed from raw sensor data, to fully calibrated radiance or temperature data,
  7. Describes an adequate process by which the geo-location at which the measurements were made will be appended to the data,
  8. Describes an adequate process for obtaining calibration measurements from all calibration sources, and applying the calibration data to the sensor data,
  9. Discusses the performance anticipated from algorithms if auxiliary data sets are not available, or are incompletely available,
  10. Describes adequate methods and metrics planned to verify algorithm performance,
  11. Demonstrates a thorough understanding of algorithm development.

4.2.3 CrIS Technical Evaluation Standards

4.2.3.1 Factor 1: Performance Against EDR Requirements.

This standard is met when the Offeror:

  1. Demonstrates a through understanding of the EDR requirements levied against the CrIS. This understanding should, as a minimum, be demonstrated by provision of a detailed description of the contractor's approach and conceptual design which will satisfy the threshold requirements for the EDRs listed in paragraph 3.2.1 of the CrIS SRD.
    1. The proposal addresses all major subsystems of the sensor design which contribute to the satisfaction of the EDRs; including a demonstrated understanding of the links within the EDRs such as horizontal resolution, vertical resolution, measurement accuracy's, etc.
    2. The proposal discusses the process used to integrate data identified as being required from other sensors, and how this data will be used to satisfy the EDRs assigned to CrIS; including an error analysis showing key inputs to the EDRs and the expected error within each parameter and prepared RMS error budget.
    3. Discusses the IR radiance values that are required to produce the various EDRs, which must be satisfied by CrIS.
  2. Demonstrates thorough understanding of performance against EDR requirements

4.2.3.2 Factor 2: Flexibility for Growth and Technology Insertion

This standard is met when the Offeror:

  1. As a minimum, discusses the capability of the proposed conceptual design to accommodate design changes whether resulting from concepts that will enhance EDR performance relative to the CrIS or as may be required in order to meet EDR requirements primary to another payload instrument or as arising from factors external to the process. These external factors may include the addition, or modification of EDR performance requirements, changes to the budget allocated by the Government for the sensor's development and production program, or changes to spacecraft accommodation parameters, etc.
  2. Discusses plans to monitor technology development, whether internal or external to their organization, and provide for the capability to introduce and make use of that or similar developments in the design of the sensor.
  3. Demonstrates thorough understanding of flexibility for growth and technology insertion

4.2.3.3 Factor 3: System Engineering and Performance Assurance

This standard is met when the Offeror:

  1. As a minimum, describes the process which is planned for use in translating EDR requirements into the design parameters for the hardware. Effectiveness and practicability of the approach presented will be assessed. Presents an approach for identifying and tracking the status of the requirements specified in the SRD.
  2. Discusses an approach for performing trade studies. The presented approach should describe the methodology for conducting the studies, and identify the process for evaluating the results.
  3. Demonstrates that the Offeror is aware of the major spacecraft-sensor interface issues (e.g. mass, power and volume allocations - to include recognizing the requirement to optimize the sensor design and performance to accommodate early flight opportunities, i.e. NOAA N', and present effective management procedures to ensure that the interfaces are tracked and managed during the development and fabrication processes.
  4. Presents a software development process that will be used in validation and verification procedures.
  5. Demonstrates that the Offeror is knowledgeable about test requirements and test procedures for spaceborne hardware. The proposal demonstrates that the Offeror has a knowledge of IR FTS components and assembled systems (to include, but not limited to; scan mechanisms and alignment devices, detection techniques, beamsplitters and filters, data handling and processing, and FTS radiative transfer models), as well as the techniques used to test their operation and verify performance.
  6. Demonstrates thorough understanding of system engineering and performance assurance

4.2.3.4 Factor 4: Sensor and Sensor Subsystem Design

This standard is met when the Offeror:

  1. Discusses the process by which the sensor will be configured using components and subsystems that will provide those measurements.

1) In this assessment, the Offeror identifies which measurement parameters drive the design of the sensor and what will be done to assure that error budgets are not exceeded. The Offeror should also discuss trades which have been made, or which will be required during the development process, and provide an indication of the types of evaluation criteria which be used for those trades.

2) The proposal identifies at least 2 or 3 components of the sensor that are considered mission critical, and describe why.

  1. Addresses CrIS calibration both on the ground and during flight and discusses possible degradation of the flight calibration process over time, and plans to mitigate the effects of possible degradation's to calibration sources.
  2. At a minimum, discusses the lifetime requirements for the sensor, and identifies how the sensor will be designed to meet this requirement. The Offeror discusses the impact which limited life components will have on the design of the sensor and on cost. This discussion should include ways in which redundancy will be used particularly in areas which incorporate life-limiting components.
  1. Demonstrates a through understanding of sensor and sensor subsystem design.

4.2.3.5 Factor 5: Risk Identification and Mitigation.

This standard is met when the Offeror:

  1. At a minimum, discusses the types of technology currently employed on IR FTS sensors, and how the Offeror will monitor the development trends in IR FTS technology in terms of new component developments and improvements in performance (lifetimes, power outputs, detector sensitivities).
  2. Identifies and describe the process planned for use for identifying risk areas associated with both the selected sensor and the algorithm architecture, and the associated design and development activities.
  3. Identifies specific risk reduction trades/tasks that will be undertaken during the period leading up to downselect.
  4. Identifies plans to use these identified risk reduction trades/task results as part of the Offeror's risk reduction activities
  5. Demonstrates that these identified plans are consistent with the Offeror's discussion of management risks in other parts of proposal.
  6. Demonstrates thorough understanding of risk identification and mitigation

4.2.3.6 Factor 6: Algorithm Development

This standard is met when the Offeror:

  1. Presents a methodology for identifying, evaluating, selecting and/or developing EDR algorithms. The methodology should include considerations for operational constraints and testability. If the Offeror's proposal identifies a need for inputs from multiple sensors, the methodology should make provisions for this requirement. The proposal addresses any inter-relationship of EDRs which the Offeror has identified.
  2. Presents the procedures which will be used to manage and document the development and/or modification of algorithms.
  3. Discusses the integration and use of internally and externally developed retrieval algorithms and the way that they will be evaluated for applicability to the NPOESS program.
  4. Describes the way in which products will be developed, if auxiliary data is not available.
  5. Describes the way in which company computer resources will be used to verify algorithm performance using IPO provided standard scenes.
  6. Demonstrates thorough understanding of algorithm development

4.2.4 GPSOS Technical Evaluation Standards

4.2.4.1 Factor 1: Performance Against EDR Requirements.

This standard is met when the Offeror:

  1. Demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements as expressed in the SRD, the EDRs, etc. related to ionosphere and growth potential of the GPSOS sensor to support troposphere EDRs. The contractor demonstrates an understanding of the capabilities within the EDRs, such as horizontal resolution, vertical resolution, accuracies, and refresh consistent with other sounders.
  2. Presents an error analysis showing the key inputs to the EDRs and the expected or anticipated error within each parameter and prepares a RMS error budget.
  3. Demonstrates thorough understanding of performance against EDR requirements

4.2.4.2 Factor 2: Flexibility for Growth and Technology Insertion

This standard is met when the Offeror:

  1. Demonstrates an understanding to the sampling rate, receiver sensitivity, vertical and horizontal resolution, and ephemeris knowledge requirements.
  2. Demonstrates a knowledge and understanding of the current GPSOS state of the practice of sounding data from GPS/MET.
  3. Demonstrates thorough understanding of flexibility for growth and technology insertion

4.2.4.3 Factor 3: System Engineering and Performance Assurance

This standard is met when the Offeror:

  1. Presents an end-to-end, systems approach showing the GPSOS process from sampling the ionosphere to production of the EDRs and the impacts of each step of the entire process.
  2. Interface and Integration of the GPSOS sensor is an essential task for this activity. The GPSOS sensor present unique problem/issues related to successful integration with the spacecraft bus. GPS navigational sensors that have been integrated aboard operational spacecraft have had to resolve signal multipath issues by placing the receiver's antenna on a boom, attempting to isolate signal multipath interferences. The contractor shows knowledge of and design /engineering capabilities with ground test verification of the proposed GPSOS sensor performance by using physical optic (PO) and or Method of Moment (MOM) analysis coupled with performance verification testing within a compact range. The contractor proposes a on-orbit GPSOS sensor performance checkout and verification. All sensor performance parameters addressed
  3. Describes the size, weight, power, mechanical and electrical interfaces, and communications subsystem data load for each sensor. Spacecraft interface requirements, budgets and margins should be described and describe ground based sensor performance verification methodology.
  4. Addresses the requirement to optimize sensor design and performance to accommodate early flight opportunities, i.e. DMSP or POES .
  5. Demonstrates thorough understanding of system engineering and performance assurance

4.2.4.4 Factor 4: Sensor and Sensor Subsystem Design

This standard is met when the Offeror:

  1. Demonstrates a clear understanding of the GPSOS sensor interface requirements and specifications to the DMSP or POES satellite bus. The contractor recognizes and addresses engineering design considerations to minimize potential multipath signal reflections from host spacecraft surfaces and structures.
  2. Demonstrates knowledge of the size, wt., power, and communications margins available for the GPSOS sensor. The Offeror demonstrates knowledge and sound engineering approach to interface with spacecraft electrical, mechanical, RF, communication. and data subsystems. Rough budgets and margins are presented and justified in the proposal.
  3. Provides a detailed link margin analysis for both the L1 and L2 (and potential L5) from GPS and GLONASS. The Offeror discusses and evaluates codeless GPS processing techniques as well as those using P-code. The Offeror recognizes and evaluates GPS receive Signal to Noise characteristics of each processing technique.
  4. Recognizes and evaluates the dual use for the proposed occultation sensor, i.e. GPSOS for both ionospheric and tropospheric EDRs and for spacecraft navigational purposes.
  5. Is responsive to the requirements of GPS, GLONASS, rising & setting opportunities, i.e. does the proposal outline, describe sensor design/fabrication and testing , and the subsequent integration to the DMSP spacecraft bus. The contractor recognizes the "degree of difficulty" and propose risk reduction path or alternatives.
  6. Understands the implications of near real-time ephemeris knowledge. The contractor understands the role and use of the IGS GPS ground network?
  7. Proposes a sensor test, performance verification plan, i.e. multipath analysis, receiver S/N and system level G/T uses a combination of compact range measurement/verification and RF antenna simulation.
  8. Proposes a GPSOS sensor compliant with the overall satellite navigational requirements in terms of real time, on orbit determination of position and velocity and fully considers interface design requirements to the satellites main computer.
  9. Demonstrates a thorough understanding of sensor and sensor subsystem design.

4.2.4.5 Factor 5: Risk Identification and Mitigation.

This standard is met when the Offeror:

  1. Demonstrates a knowledge and understanding of the GPSOS state of the practice, i.e. GPS/MET both from a hardware/payload integration aspect and the data processing, EDR data production.
  2. Provides enough technical information to assure the evaluation committee that they represent the best value to the government, i.e. technical description/understanding, performance estimates, risk, cost, and schedule.
  3. Plans to use results of risk reduction activities
  4. Is this plan consistent with the discussion of management risks in other parts of proposal.
  5. Demonstrates thorough understanding of risk identification and mitigation

4.2.4.6 Factor 6: Algorithm Development

This standard is met when the Offeror:

  1. Demonstrates an understanding of the algorithm requirements to produce the EDR's and the key data inputs required to produce, i.e. ephemeris, sampling rate, etc.
  2. Presents a clear plan for the algorithm development phase through PDR to include all required inputs to meet EDR threshold requirements and to meet EDR objective requirements.
  3. Demonstrates thorough understanding of algorithm development

4.2.5 OMPS Technical Evaluation Standards

4.2.5.1 Factor 1: Performance Against EDR Requirements.

This standard is met when the Offeror:

  1. Defines a conceptual design which meets the EDR threshold requirements of the OMPS SRD.
  2. Substantiates the performance for those EDR attributes which the Offeror states that his design will exceed threshold requirements.
  3. Defines a conceptual design which is both feasible (technologically mature) and viable (affordable) in terms of the proposed NPOESS system.
  4. Adequately describes the data required from other NPOESS sensor suites and from other sources, that are needed to achieve EDR performance.
  5. Demonstrates thorough understanding of performance against EDR requirements

4.2.5.2 Factor 2: Flexibility for Growth and Technology Insertion

This standard is met when the Offeror:

  1. Identifies how conceptual design can accommodate changes in the program requirements.
  2. Identifies how conceptual design, given current size, weight, and power constraints, can accommodate satisfaction of program objectives.
  3. Shows understanding of emerging technologies applicable to the OMPS and their payoffs.
  4. Identifies plans for development and evaluation of new or alternative technologies which may increase sensor performance, improve spacecraft accommodation, and/or reduce cost.
  5. Identifies plans and opportunities for technology insertion.
  6. Demonstrates thorough understanding of flexibility for growth and technology insertion

4.2.5.3 Factor 3: System Engineering and Performance Assurance

This standard is met when the Offeror:

  1. Demonstrates thorough understanding of Ozone mapping and profiling mission requirements.
  2. Adequately describes the requirements flowdown and allocation process by which EDR requirements are translated into the sensor functional baseline, and provides an example of this flowdown.
  4. Describes the methodology that will be used to translate requirements developed in the sensor functional baseline into a preliminary design for the sensor.
  5. Describes trade studies to narrow down the number of sensor design alternatives and to identify optimal choices for the OMPS design. The trade studies should include a study of the coverage and refresh requirement for obtaining total column and profile measurements.
  6. Defines an approach to evaluating alternative concepts which may be under consideration for the design, and discusses the advantages and disadvantages of each concept. Specifically addresses architectures that include both limb viewing and nadir mapping capabilities.
  7. If separate sensors are proposed for mapping and profiling, defines an approach for selecting the overall architecture and how sensing functions are allocated to individual sensors in the suite.
  8. Exhibits an understanding of the proposed spacecraft-sensor interfaces and presents management procedures to ensure interface requirements are tracked and managed during development and fabrication.
  9. Addresses sensor accommodation on the spacecraft with a discussion of factors such as power, weight, size, placement and margins.
  10. Describes adequate approach for flight and ground software development, verification and validation.
  11. Demonstrates familiarity with test requirements and test procedures for spaceborne hardware and software, and the techniques used to test operation and verify performance.
  12. Discusses sound methodologies and models to be used to assess the sensor's end-to-end operational performance.
  13. Demonstrates thorough understanding of system engineering and performance assurance

4.2.5.4 Factor 4: Sensor and Sensor Subsystem Design

This standard is met when the Offeror:

  1. Identifies mission critical sensor components and provides a rationale for their mission criticality.
  2. Demonstrates an understanding of all sensor subsystem components such as scanning system, optics, on board calibration subsystems, active / passive coolers, thermal control, on-board processing, etc., and their interactions in the design process.
  3. Demonstrates an approach for maintaining radiometric and wavelength calibration and long term stability of the sensor over its lifetime, and discusses plans to deal with degradation of calibration components.
  4. Discusses how life sensitive components will be identified and how designs will be accomplished to meet the 7 year OMPS on-orbit lifetime requirement.
  5. Demonstrates knowledge, familiarity, and selection of sensor elements, components and subassemblies for brassboard/breadboards and test beds, and presents plans to use them to assess system performance.
  7. Demonstrates an understanding of sensor design issues (SNR, MTF, long term stability, calibration, etc.) as they relate to this EDR
  9. Defines a conceptual design that maintains size, weight, and power constraints for OMPS. If these constraints cannot/should not be met, justification must be provided.
  10. Demonstrates a thorough understanding of sensor and sensor subsystem design.

4.2.5.5 Factor 5: Risk Identification and Mitigation.

This standard is met when the Offeror:

  1. Identifies specific problems and risk areas associated with the OMPS development and why they were selected.
  2. Recommends risk reduction programs that should be pursued.
  3. Defines an approach and proposed use of hardware test programs (i.e. breadboards and brassboard configurations, environmental and functional tests of critical subsystems, prototype development tests, etc.) to reduce risk.
  4. Determines if specialized components are necessary and discusses availability and producibility of these components.
  5. Demonstrates thorough understanding of risk identification and mitigation

4.2.5.6 Factor 6: Algorithm Development

This standard is met when the Offeror:

  1. Demonstrates an understanding of the scientific and phenomenology basis for algorithms (e.g. spectral bands utilized, viewing geometry constraints, etc.) that will meet/exceed EDR mapping and profiling requirements and the ancillary data processing inputs required to produce Ozone EDR products (e.g. surface pressure, temperature profiles, cloud amount and other meteorological data).
  2. Demonstrates an understanding of the steps required to convert sensor measurements into SDRs and Ozone EDRs.
  3. Addresses algorithm alternatives to be investigated [physical retrieval, statistical, etc.].
  4. Defines an approach and demonstrates the capability to perform science algorithm development.
  5. Defines an approach for proposed use and integration of externally developed algorithms, and how the contractor plans to interact with the Government OATS (Operational Algorithm Teams) to develop and validate algorithms.
  6. Discusses the performance anticipated from algorithms if auxiliary data sets (if required) are not available, or are incompletely available
  7. Discusses the methods planned to verify total algorithm performance
  8. Presents adequate procedures to manage and document the development and/or modification of algorithms.
  9. Demonstrates thorough understanding of algorithm development

5.0 AREA 2: MANAGEMENT APPROACH

This paragraph presents factors and the corresponding standards for the Management Approach Area. These factors and standards apply to the management approach area for each sensor.

The evaluation of the Management Area (using the specific evaluation standards listed in the following paragraphs) will be based on the proposal volumes, the Offeror's CWBS, Integrated Master Plan (includes the Statement of Work), Integrated Master Schedule, and Offeror proposed changes to the CDRL. The CWBS, IMP, and IMS must contains sufficient tasks and program planning information to perform the work proposed.

5.1 Factor 1: Program Management. The Offeror's management approach will be evaluated as to whether it provides clear evidence of the flexibility and ability to plan and execute the sensor development program through PDR within the proposed schedule and cost and allow for requirements evolution and improvement. The evaluation will be based on soundness of approach. The standard for this factor is met when the Offeror:

  1. Appropriate levels of management are applied to the efforts and of skills mix are shown. Names the Program Manager, defines his role, and shows his accountability to the IPO. Presents a comprehensive management approach for monitoring, reviewing, organizing, controlling, and integrating (including co-location of key personnel and resources) the entire effort.
  2. Defines an approach to the selection and design of the sensor which will remain affordable and executable under program perturbations such as requirements changes, funding changes, technology advances, etc.
  3. Demonstrates completeness, consistency, and proposed effective use of the IMP, IMS, and CWBS; shows how CWBS tracks back to SOO. Presents an IMS and supporting tiered schedules that are realistic and practical for planning and monitoring; IMS identifies critical milestones. Discusses methods used to develop more detailed schedules. Discusses method of internal review and control and how it will ensure early warning of impending problems.
  4. Defines a realistic plan for IPT involvement to effectively monitor program progress.
  5. Defines an approach for electronic compatibility which optimizes the use of existing networks, ensures government access, and handles the distinction between proprietary and non-proprietary data
  6. Defines a specific management system (or tools) and metrics for technical performance.
  7. Defines a adequate subcontract management plan with clear technical and management interfaces with and among subcontractors, adequacy of requirements flowdown process, and integrated approach to allocating tasks and resources and control of schedules. Are appropriate incentives offered to subs and major team members.
  8. Defines an approach to using earned value management that integrate program management activities and provides visibility and insight into technical, cost, and schedule progress.
  9. Demonstrates thorough understanding of program management.

5.2 Factor 2: Risk Management. The Offeror's approach to total risk management. The evaluation will be based on soundness of approach. The standard for this factor is met when the Offeror:

  1. Describes in appropriate detail the methodologies and processes planned to be used to identify and prioritize performance, cost, and schedule risks. Is this plan consistent with the discussion of technical risks in other parts of proposal.
  2. Discusses initial assessment of potential risks.
  3. Discusses plan to control production risks.
  4. Demonstrates thorough understanding of risk management.

5.3 Factor 3: Cost As An Independent Variable (CAIV) Methodology and Cost Control. The Offeror's capability to continually assess CAIV. The evaluation will be based on soundness of approach. The standard for this factor is met when the Offeror:

  1. Demonstrates an understanding of NPOESS program requirements and user applications and how cost affects the trade space.
  2. Presents an approach to defining the sensor architecture trade space and evaluating alternative architectures which includes a rigorous cost/performance tradeoff analysis and manages risks to achieve cost, schedule and performance objectives.
  3. Demonstrates the ability of proposed solutions to meet life cycle cost saving goals.
  4. Demonstrates thorough understanding of CAIV and cost control.

5.4 Factor 4: Program Execution. The Offeror's capability to provide the necessary underlying corporate infrastructure for this effort. The evaluation will be based on soundness of approach. The standard for this factor is met when the Offeror:

  1. Demonstrates the capability to manage, plan, schedule, staff, and budget future program phases.
  2. Demonstrates that the Offeror has the facilities and/or infrastructure for hardware/software engineering and design, development, simulation, production, and test; describes and justifies any need for government furnished equipment and facilities. Shows an understanding of the difficulties and risks inherent in the fabrication, assembly, integration, and test of complex payloads for a spacecraft.
  3. Discusses the effect of alternate sourcing on sensor performance and schedule.
  4. Demonstrates thorough understanding of program execution.

6.0 AREA 3: COST

6.1 Factor 1: Instant Contract Cost. The Government will perform a price analysis of the Instant Contract Cost. The purpose of the analysis is to ensure that the proposed prices are reasonable. The Government anticipates that Adequate Price Competition (APC) will exist for this solicitation. Evaluators will examine the Cost area using Price Analysis to focus attention on “value”. Offerors are not required to submit certified cost or pricing data at this time. If APC is determined not to exist after proposal receipt, Offerors will be required to submit certified cost and pricing data, and evaluators will perform full Cost Analysis as directed in the FAR. The results of the cost evaluation will be considered in performing an integrated assessment of the proposals leading to selection of a successful Offeror. Evaluators will review risk for the Cost Area by means of a Most Probable Cost (MPC) analysis. The MPC is an estimate of the anticipated cost of performance, which may include not only the proposed price, but also any other adjustments deemed appropriate. In addition to specific contract acquisition cost, this estimate may include other Government costs expected to be incurred. Consideration may be given for variations in the amount of Government resources (e.g., Government Furnished Property) requested by Offerors, so that proposals are equitably evaluated. The MPC may also consider the risk associated with the Offeror's technical approach. While evaluating cost criteria, evaluators may compare competing offers, as well as compare offers to internal Government cost estimates. The evaluation of instant costs will include the following aspects:

6.1.1 Realism: To ensure that the Offeror's proposed costs are consistent with the technical proposal and reflect a clear understanding of the program requirements, evaluators will perform a Cost Realism Analysis (CRA). This is an assessment of the compatibility of the proposed cost with the proposal scope and efforts, the list of estimating ground rules and assumptions, and the schedule duration. The burden of proof regarding cost credibility rests with the Offeror. See Defense FAR Supplement sections 215.801, 804-1, and 805-70 for more information on CRA.

6.1.2 Reasonableness: Offer must represent a reasonable compromise between the seller's and the buyer's opinions of what constitutes a fair price. Reasonableness is also evaluated by assessing the acceptability of the methodology and rationale used to derive the cost estimates.

6.1.3 Completeness: For an offer to be complete, the Offeror must provide all the data that is necessary to support the offer. Evaluators will assess the extent to which the Cost Proposal complies with the content and format requirements set forth in this solicitation, provides sufficient documentation to perform a CRA, and exhibits traceability and replicability.

7.0 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS:

The integrated assessment will involve evaluation of general considerations. The general considerations are equal in importance and include:

7.1 Adherence to Terms and Conditions: Evaluation of the Offeror's proposed terms and conditions to address compliance with the terms and conditions intended within the solicitation.

7.2 Subcontracting Plan: Evaluation of the Offeror's Small Business/Small Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting Plan as to whether the plan addresses the minimum goals for participation in the resulting contract by small business, small disadvantaged business, historically black colleges and universities, and minority institutions.

7.3 Security Requirements: Evaluation of the Offeror's proposed facilities and personnel to ensure that they meet security requirements addressed in the solicitation.