Free Notice (Other) - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB

Document 25-5

Filed 07/15/2008

Page 1 of 12

AWARD DECISION MEMORANDUM (ADM) TRICARE Policy and Operations Directorate(TPOD), TRICARE Operations Division (TOD)/ Office of the General Counsel- Program Management Support

I. Solicitation: The Task Order Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued on 18 June 2008. The RFP was sent to Lockheed Martin and Axiom. Three amendments were sent out to the vendors; Amendment 1: · Sent out on 18 June 2008 to clarify the evaluation criteria and shorten the proposal due date from 7 July 2008 to 30 June 2008. Amendment 2: · Sent out on 19 June 2008 the adm. Identified that the intent of the contract was to create a Short Term Bridge Contract until a resolution was made in the case of Axiom Resource Management, Inc. vs. The United States, Fed. Cir. No. 2008-5072 (appeal docketed April 29, 2008) in reference to contract W81XWH-06-F-0440. · Also a separate email was sent out to Axiom stating that they would not be considered for award until an apparent Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) was addressed and resolved to the satisfaction of the Government. Amendment 3: · Sent out 02 July 2008, made further clarifications to the Evaluation Criteria; T.1.1.1. Basis for Award Quality Control was added · Additional time was given for revised proposal 03 July 2008, at 0800 hrs. Eastern Daylight Time. · Lockheed Martin submitted a revised proposal, Axiom did not submit a revised proposal. Axiom was contacted by the Government for confirmation that submission of a revised proposal had not been delayed due to technical delay (i.e. server back up). Russell Hill from Axiom informed the Government that Axiom would not be submitting a revised proposal, and would be using the original submission of the proposal. Axiom later submitted a revised proposal at 1351 hrs, which was rejected by Barry Sayer. II. Contract Type: This will be a Time and Materials award. The period of performance: Base Period: 15 July 2008 through 14 Jan 2009 Option One: 15 Jan 2009 through 14 April 2009 Option Two: 15 April 2009 through 14 July 2009 III. Description of Requirement: This is a limited sources justification for a TRICARE Management Activity, TRICARE Policy and Operations Directorate (TPOD), TRICARE Operations Division (TRICARE Operations Division), 16401 E. Centretech Parkway, Aurora, CO 80011 acquisition under the authority of limited sources. A limited sources J&A was approved by the Special Competition Advocate on 17 June 2008. IV. Nature and/or description of action being approved: The action being approved is a time-and-materials contract for a period of twelve months. Funding will come from FY 08 Operation and Maintenance Appropriations (OMA) through the annual Defense Health Program budget. This limited sources action will solicit proposals from Lockheed Martin Inc. (LMI) and Axiom Resource Management Inc. (Axiom) V. A description of supplies or services required to meet the agency's needs (including estimated value): This contract award provides program management support services to TRICARE Operations Division to operationalize the TRICARE program. The critical mission of the TRICARE Program is to implement and sustain TRICARE benefits for its 9 million eligible beneficiary population of active duty members, retirees, and their family members. This contract will allow continued non-medical support services for the TRICARE Operations Office which is responsible for the provision of soldier and family emergency and standard medical care. Without contractor support, TRICARE Operations Division will be unable to continue TRICARE Management Activity operations, to include continuity of program management support services and contract administration on the TRICARE Managed Care Support Contract (T-3) suite of contracts. The critical suite of T-3 contracts accomplishes the agency's mission through the procurement, award, and administration of contracts in support of the overall TRICARE Program. Additionally, services include assisting the Integrated Project and Working Integrated Project Teams,

Page 1 of 12

Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB

Document 25-5

Filed 07/15/2008

Page 2 of 12

Claims Processing, HIPAA Compliance Office, Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) and TRICARE Encounter Data System (TEDS), Office of General Counsel administrative and analytical support, and program wide Subject Matter Experts support in health care administration. .

VI. Acquisition Background: a. This service is avaible on the TEAMS mutile award, IDIQ, Category 2 contracts. b. Discuss applicability of performance based contracting approaches. The Solicitation did not dictate to the prospective contractor the scope of work to be preformed. The solicitation only gave an estemateded level of effort and the tasks that were to be preformed under the contract. The true determination of the level of effort for the contract was based on the contractor's interpretation of the stated task with in the solicitation. In accordance with FAR 37.600 Performance Based Acquisitions. c. Acquisition environment. This award is based on a Limited Sources Justification and Approval. · W81XWH 06-F-0440, was protested to GAO. GAO denied the protest and the award was appealed to the Court of Federal Claims. The verdict that was rendered from the Court of Federal Claims was to not exercise the option period for W81XWH-06-F-0440. · The DA JAG and DOJ submitted an appeal to the Court of Federal Appeal- the decision is still pending. · This action is for limited sources. Both contractors have extensive experience in providing these specific support services, and both vendors past performance in providing these services have been fully acceptable. d. N/A. e. Discuss availability of funding. Funding will come from FY 08 Operation and Maintenance Appropriations (OMA) through the annual Defense Health Program · Purchase Request Number: HT000381694112, $467,030.00 · Purchase Request Number: HT000381694111, $2,100,630.00 V. Acquisition Chronology: (Provide a listing of significant acquisition events and dates completed.) a. The e-package was received on 12 June 2008. b. J&A Approval, · Log Number: 08-061 · Legal Approval Received on 16 June 2008 · Contracting Officer Approval Received 13 June 2008. · The SCA approved the J&A on 17 June 2008. c. N/A. d. N/A e. N/A. f. Date Solicitation issued, and any amendments to the solicitation. (See section I) g. Receipt of proposals. Number of proposals received. · Two Proposals were received: Lockheed Martin and Axiom h. Technical review from TMA was requested and completed. · The proposals were submitted (cost proposal and technical were submitted to the evaluation panel separately) on 03 July 2008. · The Completed Evaluations were received on 03 July 2008

Page 2 of 12

Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB

Document 25-5

Filed 07/15/2008

Page 3 of 12

i. Adequate Pricing Competition exists based on the TEAMS, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contracts. There are 23 firms who hold Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contracts under the TEAMS array of contracts. VII. Evaluation of Offers. a. Basis for Award: TRADEOFF EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD Basis for Award: Award of this task order will be made on a competitive best value basis, using "tradeoff" among cost/price and noncost/price factors. The Government may elect to award to other than the lowest priced offeror, or other than the offeror with the highest rated non-cost/price proposal. If the award is to be made to the superior offeror, then a cost/price vs. non-cost/price tradeoff will have to be determined and qualified. Non-Cost/Price factors will include Technical Approach, Experience and Past Performance. The non-price evaluation factors are numbered in descending order of importance and are as follows: (1) Technical Approach, (2) Experience, (3) Past Performance (4) Quality Control Approach

The non-cost/price factors in their totality are more important than price/cost. Cost/Price Evaluation The Government will conduct an appropriate cost/price analysis to determine whether prices are fair, reasonable, realistic, and competitive. As the collective non-cost/price factors reach equality in the evaluation cost/price becomes a more important factor in the tradeoff analysis. Each offeror must fully document and substantiate a cross mapping of their cost approach as it equates to their non-cost/price proposal. Please note that unsubstantiated costs that are considered unrealistic or unsupported or both may cause the overall technical evaluation to be adjusted in one or more of the factors listed in the non cost evaluation factors upon the completion of the cost/technical tradeoff analysis. Evaluation Criteria The following criteria will be used to evaluate the non-cost/price aspects of the proposal: Technical Approach The degree to which the Offeror's technical approach reflects a clear understanding of the capabilities to successfully provide administrative program management support of TPOS's acquisition initiatives. The successful accomplishments of these duties will result in the development of a suite of T-3 RFP's, smooth transitions of the contracts and successful defense of any procurement protests, as well as continued support for the current TNEX contracts. Experience The degree to which the Offeror's proposal reflects corporate or proposed staff experience identical to, similar to/or related to the requirement. The degree to which the Offeror's proposal reflects the ability to provide Program Management support services to the TMA as needed to operationalize the TRICARE program. Services provided by the contractor shall include supporting Integrated Project Teams and Working Integrated Project Teams, maintaining project milestone charts, and preparing documentation as necessary. The documentation may include Concept of Operations (CONOPS), Functional Requirements Document (FRD), risk assessments, implementation and compliance plans, cost estimates, and Change Management Fact Sheets. All work provided shall be performed in compliance with the DoD 5000 series and TMA directives. Activities supported shall include, but are not necessarily limited to, Claims Processing, HIPAA compliance, DEERS and TEDS support. The Program Manager

Page 3 of 12

Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB

Document 25-5

Filed 07/15/2008

Page 4 of 12

and Task Manager (SME), Sr. Healthcare Professional and General Management Professional are considered "Key Personnel" please provide resumes and letters of intent for these positions, for these positions. Past Performance The degree to which past performance evaluations either included in the proposal or identified by the evaluators in any other manner, reflect success in the ability to provide administrative program management support of acquisition initiatives. The offeror must provide a list of at least 3 but no more than 5, references of relevant past and present contracts for Federal, State and/or City agencies and commercial customers within the past 3 years. "Relevant" is defined as like service as stated in this solicitation's Statement of Work in terms of similar scope and complexity. It is the offeror's responsibility to provide valid, current and verifiable references. References must include: Name of the Organization that will be providing the reference, Name of the Point of Contact (POC), POC Telephone Number, POC Email address, Contract Number, Period of Performance, and Scope of Work. The Government may also consider information obtained through other sources. Past performance information will be utilized to determine the quality of the contractor's past performance as it relates to the probability of success of the required effort. Ensure that contract information is accurate and up-to-date, as references will be checked. Quality Control Approach The degree to which the Offeror's approach to quality control identifies processes, procedures, and metrics which, are likely to predict successful outcome within cost and on schedule.

Price/Cost The degree to which the proposed cost/price is reasonable, realistic, and competitive.

Past Performance Rating Standards for the Non Cost/Price Proposal Rating Low Risk (LR) Definition and Criteria Based on the Offeror's performance record, there is high confidence that the Offeror can perform the proposed effort. Based on the Offeror's performance record, there is a reasonable level of confidence that the Offeror can perform the proposed effort. Based on the Offeror's performance record, there is low confidence that the Offeror can perform the proposed effort.

Moderate Risk (MR)

High Risk (HR)

Page 4 of 12

Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB

Document 25-5

Filed 07/15/2008

Page 5 of 12

Unknown Risk (UR)

Little or no relevant performance record identifiable; equates to an unknown risk rating having no positive or negative evaluation significance. IAW FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), in the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

Tradeoff Evaluation Standard Definitions Rating The evaluators' conclusions (supported by narrative write-ups) identifying the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of an evaluation factor or sub factor. The ratings for each Non-Cost/Price Factor and each of its Sub factors will be expressed as an adjective. Any aspect of a proposal that, when judged against a stated evaluation criterion enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract. A significant strength appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably increases the probability of successful contract performance. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. Proposal risks are those risks associated with the likelihood that an offeror's proposed approach will meet the requirements of the solicitation. Performance risks are those risks associated with an offeror's likelihood of success in performing the solicitation's requirements as indicated by that offeror's record of current or past performance. Any state, circumstance, opportunity, or means specially favorable to successful contract performance or the Government's overall interest. Any state, circumstance, opportunity, or means specially unfavorable to successful contract performance or the Government's overall interest.

Strength

Significant Strength

Weakness Significant Weakness Deficiency

Proposal Risk

Performance Risk

Advantage

Disadvantage

Rating Standards for the Non Cost/Price Proposal (Excluding Past Performance) Rating Definition and Criteria

Page 5 of 12

Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB

Document 25-5

Filed 07/15/2008

Page 6 of 12

Exceptional (E)

The proposal has exceptional merit and reflects an excellent approach which should clearly result in the superior attainment of all requirements and objectives. The proposed approach includes numerous substantial advantages, and essentially no disadvantages, and can be expected to result in outstanding performance. The solutions proposed are considered very low risk in that they are exceptionally clear and precise, fully supported, and demonstrate a complete understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Very Low The proposal demonstrates a sound approach which is expected to meet all requirements and objectives. This approach includes substantial advantages, and few relatively minor disadvantages, which collectively can be expected to result in better than satisfactory performance. The solutions proposed are considered to reflect low risk in that they are clear and precise, supported, and demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Low The proposal demonstrates an approach which is capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. The approach has both advantages and disadvantages, however the disadvantages do not outweigh the advantages and the approach can be expected to result in satisfactory performance. The solutions proposed are considered to reflect moderate risk in that they are for the most part clear, precise, and supported, and demonstrate a general understanding of all the requirements. Risk Level: Moderate The proposal does not demonstrate a full understanding of all the requirements and may pose a risk that the offeror might fail to perform satisfactorily without significant Government oversight or participation. Any advantages that may exist in the approach are outweighed by existing disadvantages. The solutions proposed are considered to reflect high risk in that they lack clarity and precision, or are unsupported. Risk Level: High The proposal demonstrates an approach which will very likely not be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. This approach has one or more substantial disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages are not likely to result in satisfactory performance. The solutions proposed are considered to reflect very high risk in that they lack any clarity or precision, are unsupported, or indicate a lack of understanding of the requirement. Risk Level: Very High.

Good (G)

Acceptable (A)

Marginal (M)

Unacceptable (U)

b. Offerors/Prices/Rating Overview: During the evaluation, the Government identified proposal strengths, weaknesses and any deficiencies. A summary of each offerors' final proposal evaluation is provided below: OVERALL NON-PRICE/COST FACTORS AXIOM Non-Price/Cost Factors 1. Technical Approach 2. Experience 4. Quality Control Approach Overall Consensus Rating (Non-Past Performance) 3. Past Performance LM

Rating
E E G E LR

Rating
E E G E LR

Page 6 of 12

Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB

Document 25-5

Filed 07/15/2008

Page 7 of 12

OVERALL EVALUATED PRICE/COST IGCE AXIOM LM

Price/Cost
Transition In* Base Period Option Period 1 Option Period 2 Transition Out* Total Base Plus All Options *Total Base Plus All Options (Evaluated) $146,321 $2,609,339 $1,305,476 $1,305,476 $213,254 $5,579,866 $5,220,291

Price/Cost
$215,947 $2,617,744 $1,312,847 $1,359,273 $223,628 $5,729,439 $5,289,864

Price/Cost
$0 $2,468,271 $1,263,400 $1,262,900 $0 $4,994,571 $4,994,571

OVERALL EVALUATED PRICE/COST VARIANCE Price/Cost Variance From the IGCE Transition In* Base Period Option Period 1 Option Period 2 Transition Out* Total Base Plus All Options *Total Base Plus All Options (Evaluated)

AXIOM $69,626 $8,405 $7,371 $53,797 $10,374 $149,573 $69,573

LM $(146,321) $(141,068) $(42,076) $(42,576) $(213,254) $(585,295) $(225,720)

c. Evaluation Results, Non-Cost/Price Factors Axiom Factor 1- Technical Approach Rating - Exceptional Axiom's technical proposal reflects a clear understanding of their capability to provide administrative program management support. Specific strengths related to specific tasks from the proposal are identified below: · · · · · The proposed executive team brought DoD 5000- guided program management support to TMA in 1998 and continues its leadership in program management support throughout TMA. AXIOM has first- hand experience in TRICARE Managed Care Support Contract Transitions Proposal demonstrates first hand knowledge of tasks required. Axiom has a thorough understanding of the TMA organization and commits to raising the level of professionalism, improve customer service, and continuously train on the importance of the attention to detail necessary to properly and effectively serve at the highest level. The proposed team approach for providing SME support is an effective means for achieving the tasks required by the Government.

Overall, Axiom's approach, management structure and staffing will provide the support necessary to develop T3 RFPS, transition the contracts, and defend any procurement protests while providing support to current contracts.

Page 7 of 12

Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB

Document 25-5

Filed 07/15/2008

Page 8 of 12

No weaknesses or discrepancies were identified.

Lockheed Martin Factor 1- Technical Approach Rating - Exceptional Lockheed Martins technical approach reflects a clear understanding of their capability to provide administrative program management support. Specific strengths related to specific tasks from their proposal are identified below: · · · · · · Lockheed Martin's ability to provide program management support is clearly demonstrated through their current support of the T-3 Project Manager in the T-3 DEERS IPT and WIPTs for the suite of T-3 contracts. Lockheed Martin personnel have supported several TRICARE contract transitions over the last year. Their consulting staff includes SMEs who were instrumental in successful MCSC T-Nex transitions that occurred in the 2003-2004 timeframe. Lockheed Martin has realized a 97% success rate in response to Government taskers . Lockheed Martin has a wealth of experienced SMEs that understand and possess the crucial skill set required for successful completion of special studies. Lockheed Martin has actively recruited personnel with years of specialized healthcare experience that is directly applicable to the support requirements of TMA. Their OGC support capabilities were clearly demonstrated through 12 years of continuous support to DOJ that enabled litigators to control and manage a large volume of case materials and complex information.

Lockheed Martins management structure and staffing will provide support necessary to develop T-3 RFPS, transition the contracts, and defend any procurement protests while providing support to current contracts. No weaknesses or discrepancies were identified. Axiom Factor 2- Experience Rating - Exceptional Axiom's proposal identifies corporate and staff experience identical to the requirement and reflects the ability to provide program management support services to TMA. Specific references related to their experience are identified below: · Corporate staff includes former senior government officials with responsibilities for acquisition and contract management. · The proposed executive team has a combined core experience level of more than 75 years working within the MHS. · Proposed staff for special studies has more than 50 years of combined experience in all aspects of healthcare management, including nearly 30 combined years with the TRICARE program. No weaknesses or discrepancies were identified. Lockheed Martin Factor 2- Experience Rating - Exceptional Lockheed Martins proposal identifies corporate and staff experience identical to the requirement and reflects the ability to provide program management support services to TMA. Specific references related to their experience are identified below:

Page 8 of 12

Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB

Document 25-5

Filed 07/15/2008

Page 9 of 12

· ·

Corporate experience supporting the current contract is complemented by 18 years of experience supporting other similar contracts. Lockheed Martin's SMEs possess over 127 years of collective experience supporting a variety of healthcare related venues.

No weaknesses or discrepancies were identified. Axiom Factor 3- Past Performance Rating ­ Low Risk Four of five references were contacted telephonically. No contractual issues were identified. All references rated the contractor as Exceptional. Lockheed Martin Factor 3- Past Performance Rating - Low Risk Two of five references were contacted telephonically. No contractual issues were identified. All references rated the contractor as Good or Exceptional. Axiom Factor 4- Quality Control Rating ­ Good Axiom's approach to quality control clearly identified their processes, procedures, and metric management which will provide a successful outcome within cost and on schedule. Following are references to specific strengths in the quality approach: · Axiom's Quality Control Plan (QCP) follows a clear 5-step program based on the Plan-Do-Check-Act quality model, adding an additional step, Adjust the Work. The QCP guarantees that all defined project processes are reviewed and validated as responsive, timely, productive, and compliant. · Axiom will utilize their Performance Surveillance Plan to track the work and monitor success. They will complete a Performance Checklist on each task to track each functional area's compliance with their PSP. · The metrics provided in their quality plan were identical to the Government QASP in the PWS. Additional details identifying methods for evaluation was not provided. No discrepancies were identified. Lockheed Martin Factor 4- Quality Control Rating ­ Good Lockheed Martin's approach to quality control clearly identified their processes, procedures, and metric management which will provide a successful outcome within cost and on schedule. Following are references to specific strengths in the quality approach: · · · · Lockheed Martin's Quality Control Plan is based on the Plan-Do-Check-Act quality model. A formal QCP will be submitted upon contract award. Their quality control approach identifies procedures and methods to sustain a high level of quality and is expected to meet all requirements and objectives. Part of the quality plan includes a self assessment program that is utilized to map processes against contract requirements. A Performance Management and Metrics Plan will be used to document how Lockheed Martin will achieve the performance requirements identified in the PWS matrix.

Page 9 of 12

Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB

Document 25-5

Filed 07/15/2008

Page 10 of 12

·

The metrics provided in their quality plan identified the reports which will document the results of performance. However, specific details of the process were not furnished with their proposal.

No discrepancies were identified.

Axiom Factor 5- Price/ Cost Evaluated as $ 5,289,864.00 · · Costs matched CLIN structure provided. Cost variance is due to increased Travel costs and Transition costs. Travel costs and optional SME requirement were priced separately as instructed. However, travel costs appear to be overstated by $15,904. The PWS calls for 4 trips total, but Axiom's proposal costs included 4 trips per period of performance, a total of 12 trips. The proposed price was $5,729,439. Transition In & Out costs were 4.86% higher. All transition costs were removed from the overall price/cost evaluation. A decision was made by Barry Sayer to level the field on transition, since both firms are familiar with the work. This reduced Axiom's evaluated price to $5,289,864.00. The cost proposal and proposed personnel skill sets matched labor categories and the anticipated level of effort stated in the PWS. The overall total evaluated price (including T-3 labor) was reasonable in comparison with the IGCE; total evaluated cost is only 1.33% greater than the IGCE.

·

· ·

Overall total proposed costs are realistic for the work to be performed and reflect an understanding of the requirements with the exception of required travel as described in the PWS. Lockheed Martin Factor 5- Price/ Cost Evaluated as $4,994,571.00 · · · · · Costs matched the CLIN structure provided. Travel costs and optional SME requirement were priced separately as instructed. Cost proposal matched labor categories for anticipated level of effort. Costs were less than the IGCE, primarily due to no additional cost to the Government for transition. Other differences were due to a lower labor rate. The price/cost of all contract line items are not significantly over or understated. The proposed personnel skill sets match the anticipated level of effort stated in the PWS.

Overall total costs are reasonable in comparison with the IGCE; total proposed cost is 10.49% less than the IGCE. Total proposed costs are realistic for the work to be performed and reflect a clear understanding of the requirements in the PWS.

d. Overall TRADE-OFF: Based on the Technical Evaluation Panel's (TEP) review, and independent analysis by the Contracting Officer, both proposals being technically equal for the evaluation of non-cost/ price factors, the Government will select the Offeror with the lowest cost. The comparative analysis conducted in the course of the evaluation process and though a consensus, the evaluation panel and Contracting Officer confidently recommends award to Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin's technical proposal was rated Exceptional and their past performance risk was Low Risk. Lockheed Martin's proposed price/cost was $4,994,571.00.

Page 10 of 12

Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB

Document 25-5

Filed 07/15/2008

Page 11 of 12

Due to the fact that the recommended offeror is Lockheed Martin, the Contracting Officer has determined to table the OCI discussion with Axiom for the purposes of this award, as it does not prove relevent to this award decision. The Lockheed Martin OCI mitigation plan was reviewed by TMA and the Contracting Officer, and Lockheed Martin was determined to not have an OCI. This is also based on the the OCI analysis performed on Lockheed Martin in award of its base IDIQ TEAMS award.

Axiom and Lockheed Martin received the same rating for the non-priced evaluation factors with an overall rating of Exceptional for the technical approach, experience and quality control; and a Low Risk in past performance. Lockheed Martin submitted an evaluated price lower than Axiom by $295,293.00 which is 5.9% lower than the evaluated price/cost of Axiom ($5,289,864.00). Therefore, the Government has determined based on all factors evaluated, that Lockheed Martin offers the best value to the Government. The level of effort was deemed acceptable. The labor prices proposed by Lockheed Martin have been determined fair and reasonable based on the TEAM's IDIQ contract, and contract W81XWH-06F-0440. Therefore, the total price is determined to be fair and reasonable.

Certifications/Clearances: Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Is the offeror on the List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement and Nonprocurement Programs? x x x Certificate of Cost and Pricing data received? Has offeror submitted all required certifications? Was a satisfactory subcontracting plan submitted? Has the offeror been determined responsible in accordance with FAR 9.103? x Has EEO compliance been received (over $10 million)?

a. b. c. d.

x

e. f.

x

Page 11 of 12

Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB

Document 25-5

Filed 07/15/2008

Page 12 of 12

OCI: OCI Evaluation Select (X) one below X There is no likelihood that a conflict of interest would exist if award were made to the recommended offeror. A possible conflict of interest would exist if award were made to the offeror. A possible conflict of interest would exist if award were made to the offeror, however the mitigation/avoidance plan provides sufficient protection of Government interests to allow award to this contractor, should this contractor's proposal be determined to be the best value alternative for the Government.

CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY: The contractor has been determined to be responsible within the meaning of FAR Subpart 9.1 and is financially stable. The contractor has the necessary personnel, equipment, and facilities to perform the proposed Statement of Work. The contractor has demonstrated a record of responsibility and integrity based on successful performance. The contractor is not on the Consolidated List of Debarred, Suspended and Ineligible Contractors. The contractor is registered in the Centralized Contractor's Registration (CCR) system. The contractor's OCI mitigation plan was reviewed, and determined to not have an OCI. Source Selection Decision Statement: As Source Selection Authority for this acquisition, I have determined that the service proposed by Lockheed Martin provides the best overall value to satisfy Army needs. This selection was made based upon the factors established in the solicitation, and my integrated assessment and comparison of the strengths, weaknesses, and risks of the proposals submitted in response to the solicitation. This memorandum documents the basis for my decision.

Prepared by: //signed// Kelly R. Green Contract Specialist

Approved:
E-Signed by Daniel R. Signore VERIFY authenticity with ApproveIt

Daniel R. Signore Contracting Officer

11 July 2008 ___________________________ Date

Page 12 of 12