AUTOMATION SOURCE SELECTION PLAN

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP88-00733R000200190045-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 23
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 30, 2010
• Sequence Number: 45
• Publication Date: April 18, 1985
• Content Type: MEMO

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/30: CIA-RDP88-00733R000200190045-4
HU??''IMIKAHVE - INTERNAL USE -!SLY D/FBIS Chrono
ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET
SUBJECT: (Optional)
Automation Source Selection Plan
FROM:
N
NO.
STAT
FBIS-1225 85
DATE
18 April 1985
TO: (Officer designation, room number, and
building)
DATE
OFFICER'S
COMMENTS (Number each comment to show from whom
INITIALS
to whom. Draw a line across column after each comment.)
RECEIVED
FORWARDED
1.. .
C/FBIS/SDS
2.
C/E&PS
3.
DD/FBIS
4.
D/FBIS
5. 6 E 40 Headquarters
C/R4S/DDS$T
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
it
14. CO/FBIS
301 Ames Bldg,
C
1S.
FORM
1-79
610
USE PREVIOUS
EDITIONS
GPO 1983 0 - 411-632
ADMINISTRATIVE . INTFRNnI I 11Q1: nnn v
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/30: CIA-RDP88-00733R000200190045-4
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/30: CIA-RDP88-00733R000200190045-4
AUl iII, \ I i1ftI I'1t - II'Y I Ell lu _)L Li 1'.
FBIS-1225/85
18 April 1985
MEMORANDUM FOR: Director, Foreign Broadcast Information Service
Chief, Procurement Management Staff, DDS$T
FROM: STAT
Contracting Otticer, FBIS
Attached please find the subject plan for your review and
approval. The plan was developed in coordination with the Chief, System
Development Staff; the Deputy Director, FBIS; and the Chief, Procurement
Management Staff, DDS$T.
STAT
ADMINISTRATIVE -,INTERNAL USE ONLY
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/30: CIA-RDP88-00733R000200190045-4
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/30: CIA-RDP88-00733R000200190045-4
Al ''''fleilJINA 11Vt - II`IItRIt!I L U)[' ;i'dLi
SUBJECT: Automation Source Selection Plan
STAT
42 ..l 1
Date
Chief, Procurement Management Staff, DDSF,T Date
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/30: CIA-RDP88-00733R000200190045-4
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/30: CIA-RDP88-00733R000200190045-4
b\UI''' `11S I I;A I !'1 t - 11\1 I Lrl I AL J 3L 1 ~. ;
SUBJECT: Automation Source Selection Plan
DDS&T/FBIS/00~ '.16 Apr 85)
Distribution:
Orig - Director, Foreign Broadcast Information Service (w/att)
1 - Other addressee (w/att)
1 - DD/FBIS
1 - C/EFPS
1 - FBIS Registry
1 - CO Chrono
STAT
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE nNI V
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/30: CIA-RDP88-00733R000200190045-4
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/30: CIA-RDP88-00733R000200190045-4
MUh`liIL -` I t(MI IVt - IN I ttTNML U;3L Ui''
AUTOMATION SOURCE SELECTION PLAN
1.0 Overview
This plan describes the process that shall be followed during
the evaluation of proposals for Automation, RFP 10-85. Each step is described
in the sections that follow. Appendix A lists the personnel who shall
participate in the evaluation process. Appendix B shows the projected
schedule for the evaluation process. Appendix C contains the evaluation plan.
1.1 Receive and Distribute Proposals
The evaluation process shall be coordinated by the FBIS
Contracting Officer (CO), who will assist the Source Selection Authority
(SSA), and the Chief, System Development Staff, who shall also serve as the
chairperson of the Source Evaluation Board (SEB). When proposals are
received, the FBIS/CO shall log each proposal and forward the required number
of copies to the chairpersons of the respective evaluation panels and the
source evaluation board chairperson. The cost evaluation panel shall receive
only the cost sections of the proposals; the technical evaluation panel shall
receive the technical and build plan proposals; and the management evaluation
panel shall receive the management and build plan proposals.
The function of the evaluation panels is to evaluate each
offerors proposal against the criteria established in the RFP. The evaluation
panels shall identify, within the scope of its evaluation area, items within
each proposal which are ambiguous, uncertain and unclear; items which are
responsive to the RFP; and items which are deficient. A "deficiency" is
defined as a requirement as established in the RFP that is not satisfied in
the proposal.
2.0 Evaluations
2.1 Technical Evaluation
Technical evaluations shall be performed by the technical
panel. These evaluations shall be performed independently of the cost and
management evaluations. However, interaction with the cost evaluation panel
shall be allowed if needed, as determined by the Contracting Officer. The
technical evaluation panel shall utilize the evaluation criteria and procedure
described in Appendix C of this document. The panel shall report the results
of its evaluations to the SEB. The reports shall contain the following:
A list of the strong and weak points of each proposal, and
identification of potential risks.
A list of deficiencies for each proposal, specifying items to which
the proposal is nonresponsive, from a technical standpoint.
AflMll\TISTP, NIF - INT1?N8I I IMF rim v
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/30: CIA-RDP88-00733R000200190045-4
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/30: CIA-RDP88-00733R000200190045-4
3ft:1bistiL
A summary of the point score ratings awarded to each proposal during
the evaluation process. The summary shall represent a consensus of the
panel. Should any member(s) of the panel hold a minority opinion
regarding the evaluation(s) and/or ranking, a minority report shall
accompany the panel report and the minority report shall detail the basis
and rationale for the descending opinion. The panel summary shall include
an overall narrative evaluation of each proposal.
2.2 Management Evaluation
Management evaluations shall be performed by the management
panel. These evaluations shall be performed independently of the cost and
technical evaluations. However, interaction with the cost evaluation panel
shall be allowed if needed, as determined by the Contracting Officer. The
management evaluation panel shall utilize the evaluation criteria and
procedure described in Appendix C of this document. The panel shall report
the results of its evaluations to the SEB. The reports shall contain the
following:
A list of the strong and weak points of each proposal, identifying
potential risks.
A list of deficiencies for each proposal, specifying items to which
the proposal is nonresponsive, from a management standpoint.
A summary of the point score ratings awarded to each proposal during
the evaluation process. The summary shall represent a consensus of the
panel. Should any member(s) of the panel hold a minority opinion
regarding the evaluation(s) and/or ranking, a minority report shall
accompany the panel report and the minority report shall detail the basis
and rationale for the descending opinion. The panel summary shall include
an overall narrative evaluation of each proposal.
2.3 Cost Evaluation
The cost evaluation shall be performed by the cost evaluation
panel and shall initially be conducted independently of the technical and
management evaluations. After the technical and management panels have
submitted their formal reports to the SSEB, selected members of the technical
panel shall review the cost proposals to determine cost creditability of the
technical approach each offeror proposed. At the conclusion of the
evaluation, the panel shall submit a cost evaluation report to the SEB a
containing the following:
A list of deficiencies for each proposal, specifying items to which
the proposal is nonresponsive, from a cost standpoint.
A list of cost items for each proposal which requires further
clarification.
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL I USF nimi y
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/30: CIA-RDP88-00733R000200190045-4
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/30: CIA-RDP88-00733R000200190045-4
A UV 1IJIiiMiIVt. - IIbltl(IVML UDC ' ILl
A list of the Offerors whose proposed costs deviate significantly
from the Government "should cost" estimate range for the proposed design
approach.
3.0 Determination of Offerors in the Competitive Range
The SEB, using the reports and evaluations from the respective
panels, shall recommend to the Source Selection Official (SSO) the offerors
considered to be in the competitive range. An Offeror is in the competitive
range if he has a reasonable chance of being selected for contract award after
the final offers are received. Offerors whose proposals contain deficiencies
may still be considered to be in the competitive range. This would be the
case if, in the judgement of the SEB, it is feasible for the Offeror to
correct the deficiencies in a final offer. The SEB shall submit
recommendations to the SSO. The recommendation shall contain the following:
A rank ordered list of offerors recommended to be in the competitive
range.
A list of deficiencies for each proposal.
A list of items needing further clarification for each proposal.
A list of Offerors no longer considered to be in the competitive
range and the reasons for this determination.
Upon the SSO's approval the SEB shall make a presentation of its
recommendations to the SSA for approval. The SSA shall make the final
determination regarding those offerors to be considered in the competitive
range.
4.0 Discussions and Negotiations
The Contracting Officer shall notify each offeror in the
competitive range that he is still being considered for contract award. He
shall hold discussions with each of these offerors and provide a list of areas
in which the offeror is deficient. The Contracting Officer shall solicit
clarification for those areas of each proposal which are unclear. He shall
ask that revised offers be submitted by the offerors which remain in the
competitive range. Offerors shall have an opportunity to correct their areas
of noncompliance in their revised offers. The Contracting Officer shall also
notify each Offeror who is not in the competitive range that he is no longer
being considered for contract award, and he shall provide the reasons for
dropping the Offeror from contention, if formally requested. At the
completion of discussions and negotiations, the Contracting Officer shall
place a common cutoff date for the submission of revised offers.
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE OT' W_V
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/30: CIA-RDP88-00733R000200190045-4
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/30: CIA-RDP88-00733R000200190045-4
5.0 Receive Final Proposals
The Contracting Officer shall distribute the final proposals in
the same manner as the original proposals were distributed.
Each of the evaluation panels shall evaluate the final offers
using the same criteria and procedures used during the initial evaluation, as
stated previously. Each evaluation panel shall deliver a final evaluation
report to the SEB. The format of the reports shall be the same as used in the
initial evaluation reports.
Using the results of the previous evaluation and considering
other factors the SEB shall recommend which offeror(s) is/are most likely to
perform in the manner most advantageous to the Government. The Board shall
make a formal written recommendation to the SSO which offerors are to be
considered for further negotiations and contract award.
The SSO shall consider the recommendations of the SEB and shall
recommend to the contracting officer (SSA) which offeror(s) recommended for
contract award. Should the SSO decide award of the contract is to be made to
an Offeror other than the selection recommended to him by the SEB, he must
document his rationale for doing so in the form of a memorandum to the SSA
with a copy to be furnished to the SEB. The SSA shall make, with Agency
Contract Review Board approval, the final determination regarding contract
award.
9.0 Agency Contract Review Board (ACRB)
The FBIS Contracting Officer and the SEB Chairperson shall prepare
the ACRB docket recommending award to the selected offeror and formally
present the case. Negotiations, award or other action as directed by the ACRB
shall be instituted as appropriate.
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE mu v
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/30: CIA-RDP88-00733R000200190045-4
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/30: CIA-RDP88-00733R000200190045-4
Iq
Next 1 Page(s) In Document Denied
STAT
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/30: CIA-RDP88-00733R000200190045-4
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/30: CIA-RDP88-00733R000200190045-4
AU 'ICI, IEt-?IVt - IIVir-;%kriL J )L ;1..'
EVALUATION AND NEGOTIATION SCHEDULE
TARGET DATE ACTIVITY
18 April Panel Members Briefing
22 April Proposals due from
offerors
22 April
Evaluation panel
chairpersons and auditor
receive copies of
proposals
3 May
Evaluations complete &
Panel reports due to
SSEB
8 May SEB recommends competitive
range to SSO and SSA
9 - 17 May
Discussions with offerors
in the competitive
range
29 May Revised proposal(s) due
Revised proposal evaluations
complete by panels E submitted to
SEB
7 June SEB recommendation to SSO and SSA
Docket due to the Contract Review
Board
18 June Presentation to CRB
Negotiations with
contractor(s) to whom
award is anticipated
21 June Contract award
Debriefings to
non-selected contractors
#IIMINICTPfTI11F - INTI:PNI\I IIC! (Ml V
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/30: CIA-RDP88-00733R000200190045-4
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/30: CIA-RDP88-00733R000200190045-4
r0 "111'410I I\i;IIVr- - h' Erdv- fl P%L i
The following criteria and scores will be used to evaluate and rank each
proposal.
Category
Volume
(1)
Technical Approach
I
(2)
Management Plan and Staffing
II
(3)
Corporate Experience
II
(4)
Program Build Plan
Appendix A to Volume I1
(5)
Cost
III
For evaluation purposes each category has been broken down into a number
of sub-categories. These sub-categories will be rated on a scale of 0-10. To
maintain uniformity, the following guidelines have been established.
Score Range
Capability
Unacceptable
Poor -- Below minimum
government standard
requirements/high risk
Average -- Meets Minimum
government standard
requirements
Very Good -- Exceeds the
requirements in most areas
Excellent -- Outstanding in
every area
Weights assigned to each sub-category are listed on the evaluation
worksheets.
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONIY
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/30: CIA-RDP88-00733R000200190045-4
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/30: CIA-RDP88-00733R000200190045-4
Evaluation Topics
1.0 Technical Approach
1.1 Understanding of the Modernization effort
1.2 Understanding and identification of the risks
1.3 How well does the design satisfy the Specifications
1.4 Utilization of a formal analysis and design methodology
1.5 Developmental planning (code and test)
1.6 Integration and test planning
1.7 Installation and transition planning
1.8 Training planning
1.9 Maintenance planning
2.0 Management Plan and Staffing
2.1 Project Plan and Control
2.2 Configuration Management planning
2.3 Project Manager
2.4 Project Staffing
2.5 Key Personnel (Top 5)
3.0 Corporate Experience
3.1 Projects of similar characteristics and scope in which the
Contractor was the Prime/Systems Developer dealing with
evaluation, purchasing and modification of hardware and
software; integration; and training
3.2 Availability of corporate resources
3.3 Manpower Estimates
4.0 Program Build Plan
4.1 Phasing Approach and Building Blocks
4.2 Activity schedule, inter-dependencies
4.3 FBIS priorities
4.4 Facility Constraints
5.1 Total Cost
5.2 How realistic are the costs and labor hours in the relationship
to the WBS? (Recurring and Non-recurring)
5.3 Will the proposed cost control plan and cost control systems
assure a final cost within the estimate?
5.4 Proposed Incentive Fee Plan
/IIlM1;1h11QTDATI1/C IRITrrM ni i inr nrm..
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/30: CIA-RDP88-00733R000200190045-4
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/30: CIA-RDP88-00733R000200190045-4
ilU' 'linis_n 0W'tli`dL - H IL1%1t1.-
Name of Grader
FBIS MODERNIZATION
Technical Approach Worksheet
Contractor
Rating X Weight = Score
1.1 Understanding of the Modernization Effort
o Degree of understanding demonstrated by
contractor as to FBIS mission,
requirements, specifications and S.O.W.
1.2 Understanding and identification of the risks X 2
o Are hardware and software products proven
in similar applications?
o Critical areas noted
(New Code, Integration, Modify Hardware,
Software, Single Point Failures)
o Plan to control these areas
(Technical, Cost, Schedule, Use of
Prototyping)
1.3 How well does the design satisfy the X 4
Specifications
o Systems Engineering:
Soundness of approach,
availability, reliability,
maintainability, expandability
o Plans for modeling to assure FBIS of
proper fit
o Performance and System Response Time
o Use of Traceability Matrix
(Spec-Design)
o Degree of modifications to hardware
and software
1.4 Utilization of a formal analysis and design X .5
methodology
o Ease of making changes
o Ease of traceability to specification
o Visual documentation
1.5 Developmental planning (code and test)
Developmental methodology, use of standards,
and tools
(continued on next page)
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE nru V
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/30: CIA-RDP88-00733R000200190045-4
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/30: CIA-RDP88-00733R000200190045-4
i~J; ,' Ialt' ,!i'" c - 1'i1Li\P U-
1.6 Integration and test planning
o methodology, quality and completeness
1.7 Installation and transition planning
o Methodology, quality and completeness
1.8 Training Planning
o Methodology, quality and completeness
1.9 Maintenance Planning
o Methodology, quality and completeness
Total Scorel
ADMINISTRA i IVF - INITr'PNIr1 racy ?nnn v
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/30: CIA-RDP88-00733R000200190045-4
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/30: CIA-RDP88-00733R000200190045-4
Name of Grader
FBIS MODERNIZATION
Management Plan and Staffing Worksheet
Ratin X Weight = Score
2.1 Project Plan and Control
o Quality and completeness of the plan
o Defining and controlling all tasks
to produce the deliverable items in
SOW 5.0
o Utilization of tools to assure FBIS
of project timeliness and proper
reporting of status.
2.2 Configuration Management Planning
o Quality and Completeness of the Plan
o Quality Assurance
o Hardware and Software
o Procedures and Documentation
2.3 Project Manager
o Qualifications for this project
o Experience
o Position of project manager in corporate
structure
2.4 Project Staffing _
Proper mix of skills (Personnel from Prime and
Subcontractors)
o Available within required time
o Proper effort per task
(Full time, part time, location)
(Replacement policy for key personnel)
2.5 Key Personnel (Top 5) _
Degree to which key personnel demonstrate
proven expertise in the areas below to include
years of experience and educational background
o Computer hardware
o Software
o Information storage and retrieval
(library science, DBMS, text F structured)
o Communications (Protocols, LAN, Multi-User
Network/Distributed System, Open
Architecture)
(continued on next page)
ADMINISTRATIVE - INTERNAL USE ONLY
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/30: CIA-RDP88-00733R000200190045-4
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/30: CIA-RDP88-00733R000200190045-4
,IL' i 111 IV Il:i i I lY L I III ILIIi -- "`--
o Publishing (Word Processing, Text Editing,
Composition, Graphics)
o Office Automation (Electronic Mail, W-P,
Spreadsheet, File Management)
o Systems Engineering (Development, Evaluation,
Integration)
o User training
o Installation and Transition to operational
environment
Total Scorer I
A(lPAII?IIQTPATI11117 - INITEQ1M Al IC17 nni, v
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/30: CIA-RDP88-00733R000200190045-4
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/30: CIA-RDP88-00733R000200190045-4
INIS ITUdIVE - INTERNAL USA ')NL?
FBIS MODERNIZATION
Corporate Experience Worksheet
Contractor
Name of Grader
Rating X Weight = Score
3.1 Projects of similar characteristics and scope X 5
in which the Contractor was the Prime/Systems
Developer dealing with evaluation, purchasing
and modification of hardware and software;
Integration; testing; and training.
o Is the project similar in:
Size, complexity, functions,
installation, training, and
controls
3.2 Availability of corporate resources (external X 2
to the project) if Required
o Organizational Structure Relative to
Modernization Effort
o Communications Methodology (Intra and
to the Government)
o Management Interaction
o External Resources, if required
3.3 Manpower Estimates
Proper distribution of Labor
Across 1st level WBS
Total Scorel
AnAml\tlRTPATI1/F - IIIIT!:PPJA1 IIQT-- non V
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/30: CIA-RDP88-00733R000200190045-4
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/30: CIA-RDP88-00733R000200190045-4
i-`1; 111'