SECURE BORDER

INITIATIVE (SBInet)
Debriefing to
Raytheon Company

October 11, 2006

i~F~O~,UREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 1 Version 10-6-06

SELEC TION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3. 104
 Agenda
Post-Award Debriefing Purpose
Post-Award Debriefing Guidelines
Overview of Source Selection Participants,
Process and Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation Results
Best Value Decision
Questions

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 2 Version 10-06-06

SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3. 104
 Purpose of Debriefing
Explain the Overall Source Selection
Process and Rationale for the Award
Decision
Provide Feedback To Offerors Which Can
Be Effectively Leveraged for Future
Proposal Endeavors

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 3 Version 10-06-06

SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3. 104
 Guidelines for Debriefing
Constructive Feedback on the SBInet
Acquisition Process Welcome!
The Offeror Will Be Provided With:
The evaluation of strengths and weaknesses in the debriefed
offeror’s proposal
The Evaluation Factor ratings of the winning offeror and the
debriefed offeror
- Best value decision
Responses to reasonable and relevant questions regarding the
source selection process

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 4 Version 10-06-06

SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104
 Guidelines (Cont.)
The Offeror Will Not Be Provided With:
- A point-by-point comparison with other proposals
- Trade secrets, privileged or confidential processes
and techniques
- Commercial and financial information that is
privileged or confidential
- Names of individuals providing past performance
information
A debate or defense of the Government’s decision or
evaluation results

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 5 Version 10-06-06

SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104
 Basis for Contract Award

Section M.6 of the RFP: "Award shall be

made to the offeror whose proposal is
determined to meet the needs of the
Government after consideration of all
factors--i.e, the "best value."

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 6 Version 10-06-06

SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104
 Source Selection Milestones
Industry Day 1/26/2006
Market Research 21612006m211012006
Issued Synopsis and Advisory MultimStep 3/7/2006
Received/Evaluated Capability Statements 3114-312412006
Issued Advisory Notifications 3/28/2006
Issued Solicitation 4/11/2006
Issued Amendments 4/13/2006~5/19/2006
Due Diligence (Site Visits and Reading Room)411712006--412812006
Received Proposals 5/30/2006
Evaluation of Proposals and Consensus (not including final proposal
revisions) 61212006~81912006

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 7 Version 10-06-06

SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3. 104
Source Selection Milestones (Cont.)
Issued Amendment 7 (Required Standardized Information) 7/26/2006
Offerors submit documentation required in Amendment 7 8/4/2006
Letters with weaknesses and/or deficiencies 8/11/2006
Oral presentations/discussions 811712006m812212006
Final proposal revisions received 812412006~812912006
Evaluation of Final Proposals and Consensus 812512006~813012006
Source Selection Evaluation Board Recommendation 8/31/2006 ~
9/11/2006
Source Selection Authority Presentation/Decision 9/12/2006
Chief Legal Counsel Review 9/15/2006m9/17/2006
Congressional Notification 9/18/2006
IDIQ Contract Award 9/21/2006

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 8 Version 10-06-06

SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104
 SSEB Teams
Proposals were evaluated by the Source
Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB)consisting of
the following teams:
- Solutions
- Management & Past Performance
- Subcontract/Small Business Plan
- Cost/Price
Solutions and Management & Past Performance
Evaluation Teams were staffed from key CBP
operations organizations

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 9 Version 10-06-06

SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104
 Source Selection Organization
Chairperson of the Source Selection Evaluation
Board (SSEB) was Mr. Chris Milowic, Director of
Proiects, SBInet Program Office
Dr. Kirk Evans, Source Selection Review Board
(SSRB) chairperson
Two Source Selection Authorities (SSAs)
- Mr. Greg Giddens, Secure Border Initiative Executive
Director
Mr. Rod MacDonald, Assistant Commissioner, Office
of Information Technology, CBP

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 10 Version 10-06-06

SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3. 104
 Evaluation Process

Source Selection Procedures Prescribed in FAR

Part 15, Contracting By Negotiation, Set Forth in
the Source Selection Plan Were Used To:
Perform an unbiased, fair, and equitable evaluation of
all offeror proposals
Determine the contractor who provides the best value
to the Government
- Obtain the most beneficial solution possible

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 11 Version 10-06-06

SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104
 Evaluation Methodologies
Evaluation Team Section M Evaluation Factor(s) Proposal Submissions

Solution Evaluation Team* Factors 1, 2, 4 (Sub factor A) and 7 Volume II, Parts A, B, C and D
(including technical portion of ROM)

Management/Past Performance Factors 3, 4 (Sub factor B), and 5 Volume II, Parts E, F and G
Evaluation Team* and CBP Small
Business Specialist

Subcontract/Small Business Plan Factor 6 Volume II

Evaluation Team

Cost/Price Evaluation Team Factor 8 (including financial portion of Volumes I and III
ROM)

*Factor 4, The Performance Risk Factor was evaluated as follows: Sub factor A, Technical Risk, by the Solution Team
and Sub factor B, Management Risk, by the Management and Past Performance Evaluation Team. The two teams
convened to arrive at a consensus for the overall Factor rating.

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 13 Version 10-06-06

SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3. 104
 Evaluation Factor Ratings
Factor Rating
1 - Technical
2 - Performance Measures, Incentives and Disincentives, QASP Blue - Exceptional
3 - Management Plan Green - Good
6 - Subcontract Plan Yellow- Marginal
7 - Proposed Task Order Red - Unsatisfactory

Blue - Excellent
4 - Performance Risk
Green - Good to very Good
Yellow- Marginal
Red - Unacceptable

High Confidence
5 - Past Performance Significant Confidence
Satisfactory Confidence
Neutral Confidence
Little Confidence
No Confidence

8 - CosffPrice Acceptable or Unacceptable

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 14 Version 10-06-06

SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104
 Indicators for Degrees of Strengths,
Weaknesses and Deficiencies
Strengths Weaknesses Deficiencies
Minor Strength (+) Minor Weakness (-) Deficiency (D)

Slightly above standards or Slightly below standards or Material failure to meet a

expectations expectations Government requirement or
Major Strength (+ +) Major Weakness (- -) a significant weaknesses in a
proposal that increases the
risk of unsuccessful contract
Above standards or Below standards or performance to an
expectations expectations unacceptable level
Significant Strength (+ + +) Significant Weakness (- - -)

Significantly above standards Significantly below standards or

or expectations expectations

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 15 Version 10-06-06

SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104
 Ratings Definitions
Factors that are to be rated by using color codes, i.e., Factors 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7, will be
evaluated using the following color-coded rating definitions, except for Factor 3,
Management Plan, subfactor H, Certifications, which is evaluated as "complies" or "does
not comply".

Blue - Exceptional

Offeror’s proposal demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the requirements, and

the approach is of superior quality. Two or more significant strengths exist. There are
no major or significant weaknesses, and no deficiencies exist.

Green - Good
Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a good understanding of the requirements, and the
approach is of good quality. Strengths clearly outbalance any weaknesses that exist.
No deficiencies exist.

Yellow - Marginal

Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a marginal understanding of the requirements, and the

approach is acceptable but does not contain special advantages or benefit. There may
be significant weaknesses or deficiencies. Weaknesses outbalance strengths.

Red - Unsatisfactory

Offeror’s proposal does not demonstrate an understanding of the requirements, and the
approach is of unacceptable quality. There are significant weaknesses or deficiencies.
Weaknesses negate strengths.

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 16 Version 10-06-06

SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104
 Final Evaluation Comparison
Raytheon Company
Evaluation
Boeing Offeror2
Factor Offeror 3 Offe ro r 4 Raytheon
1 -- Technical (b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)
2 -- Performance
Measures
3 -- Management
Plan
4- Performance
Risk
5 -- Past
Performance
6 -- Subcontract
Plan
7- Proposed
Task Order
OVERALL
NON-COST
RANKING
8 -- Cost/Price

Strengths
~lgnltlcant (b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)
Major
Minor

Significant (b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

Major
Minor
Deficiencies

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 17 Version 10-06-06

SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104
 Evaluation Summary - Raytheon
Factors (b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5) on
1 - Technical
2 - Performance Measures, QASP
3 - Mana_~ement Plan
4 - Performance Risk
5 - Past Performance
6 - Subcontract Plan
7 - Proposed Task Order
8 - Cost/Price

(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

Weaknesses
Significant (b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)
Major
Minor
Deficiencies I
*Factors 1-4 are considered equal and each is significantly more important than Factor 5 and Factor 6. Factor 7 is less important
than Factors 5 and 6. When combined, all non-cost factors are significantly more important than Factor 8, Cost/Price

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 18 Version 10-06-06

SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3. 104
 Final Overall Evaluation
Raytheon
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 19 Version 10-06-06

SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3. 104
 Evaluation Results By Factor
Technical
Performance Measures Incentives/Disincentives,
QASP
Management Plan
Performance Risk
Past Performance, Customer Satisfaction
Subcontract/Small Business Plan
Offeror’s Proposed Task Order
Cost

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 20 Version 10-06-06

SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3. 104
 Techn (b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

Final Factor Rating

Initial Factor Rating
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
Initial Final Initial Final
Significant (b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)
Significanl (b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)
Major Major
Minor Minor
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 21 Version 10-06-06

SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3. 104
 Significant Strengths
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 22 Version 10-06-06

SEL EC TION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3. 104
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)
Significant Weaknesses

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 23 Version 10-06-06

SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3. 104
 Significant Weaknesses Cont’d.
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 24 Version 10-06-06

SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3. 104
 Significant Weaknesses Cont’d.
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 25 Version 10-06-06

SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3. 104
 Significant Weaknesses Cont’d.
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 26 Version 10-06-06

SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3. 104
 Performance Measures
IncentiveslDisincentives, QASP (b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

Fina
Initial Factor
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
Initial Final Initial Final
Significant (b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)
Significant (b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

Major Major
Minor Minor
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 27 Version 10-06-06

SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3. 104
 Management Plan
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

Final Factor Rating_

Initial Factor Rating
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
Initial Final Initial Final
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)
Significant Significant (b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

Major Major
Minor Minor

One Sub-factor (3H Certifications)is only rated as Pass/Fail

(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 28 Version 10-06-06

SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104
 Performance Risk
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

Final Facto~
Initial Factor Rating
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 29 Version 10-06-06

SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)
Performance Risk Cont’d.

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 30 Version 10-06-06

SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3. 104
 Past Performance, Customer
Satisfaction (b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

Final Factor Rating

Initial Factor Rating
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5) nitial Final
Significant (b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

Major
Minor
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 31 Version 10-06-06

SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104
 Subcontract/Small Business Plan
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

Final Factor Rating

Initial Factor Rating
STRENGTHS
Initial Final Initial Final
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)
Significant (b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5) Significant
Major Major
Minor Minor
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

Page 32 Version 10-06-06

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE
SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104
 Significant Strength
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE

Page 33 Version 10-06-06
SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104
 Offeror’s Proposed Task Order
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

Final Factor Rating

nitia Factor Rating
STRENGTHS
Initial Final Initial Final
Significant (b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)
Significant (b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

Major Major
Minor Minor
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 34 Version 10-06-06

SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3. 104
 Significant Weaknesses
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 35 Version 10-06-06

SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3. 104
 Cost/Price
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

SUMMARY OF COST PRO

Overall Acceptability I (b) (4) and
(b) (5)
Rough Order
Cost Realism
Risk of Cost Growth
Program Man
Reasonableness
Realism
Cost Growth Risk
Tucson S
Reasonableness
Realism
Risk of Cost Growth
Offeror’s Pr
Reasonableness
Realism
Risk of Cost Growth
Reasonableness and Realism were based on the Offe
comparison of costs. The Technical Solutions were e
solution.

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 36 Version 10-06-06

SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104
 Overall Evaluated Cost
In order to compare costs associated with widely differing proposals and
technical/management approaches, the SSEB focused on Task 2, the Tucson Task
Order, as the most objectively defined requirement. As shown in the table below, in
addition to considering the costs themselves, cost growth risk was also considered as
an indicator of the likelihood and severity of potential cost growth.

(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE

Page 37 Version 10-06-06
SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104
 Best Value Decision
The aggregate of non-cost factors are
considered significantly more important than
cost/price for this acquisition. In t~e judgment of
the SSEB and the Source Selection Authority
(SSA), the Boeing Company proposal offors t~e
Best Overall Value in meeting the SBInet
O~jectives and is Most Advantageous to t~e
Government because of the vast superiority of
Boeing’s technical solution and combined
performance/cost risk.

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE

Page 38 Version 10-06-06
SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104
Questions?

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 39 Version 10-6-06

SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104