SECURE BORDER

INITIATIVE (SBInet)
Debriefing to
Lockheed Martin Corporation

October 10, 2006

~F~OCOREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 1Version 10-6-06

SELECTION 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

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. 10;~
 Source Selection Milestones
Industry Day
Market Research
Issued Synopsis and Advisory Multi--Step
Received/Evaluated Capability Statements
Issued Advisory Notifications
Issued Solicitation
Issued Amendments
Due Diligence (Site Visits and Reading Room)
Received Proposals
Evaluation of Proposals and Consensus (not including final proposal
revisions)

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)
Offerors submit documentation required in Amendment 7
Letters with weaknesses and/or deficiencies
Oral presentations/discussions
Final proposal revisions received
Evaluation of Final Proposals and Consensus
Source Selection Evaluation Board Recommendation Source
Selection Authority Presentation/Decision
Chief Legal Counsel Review
Congressional Notification
IDIQ Contract Award

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
Projects, 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
 Proposal Evaluation Specifics

Proposals were evaluated individually in accordance

with the source selection evaluation criteria in
Section M and the Source Selection Plan and its
Guidelines
SSEB Teams used a source selection software tool
(Decision Point) to facilitate the evaluation of
Offeror’s proposal
After completion of individual evaluator reviews,
team consensus and scoring was facilitated

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 12 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
Fac to r 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 - CostJPrice 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---Lockheed
Martin Corporation (LMC)
Evaluation Lockheed
Boeing Offeror2
Factor Offeror 4 Offeror 5
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
Pro

~lgniticant (b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

Major
Minor

Siqnificant (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-LMC
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

Evaluation Factors *
1. Technical
2. Performance Measures
3. Management Plan
4. Performance Risk
5. Past Performance
6. Subcontract Plan
7. Proposed Task Order
8. Cost/Price

strengths
Significant (b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)
Major
Minor
Weaknesses
Significant 17 (b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)
_ Major
Minor
Deficiencies

*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 - LMC
(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
 Technical (b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

Final Factor Rating

Initial 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 21 Version 10-06-06

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

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 22 Version 10-06-06

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

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
 Performance Measures
Incentives/Disincentives, QASP (b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

Final Factor Rating

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

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

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 25 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) (b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)
Significant Significant
Major Major
Minor Minor
One Sub-factor (3H Certifications)is only rated as Pass/Fail
Offeror Sub-factor 3H rating: Initial- Pass
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 26 Version 10-06-06

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

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 27 Version 10-06-06

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

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 28 Version 10-06-06

SELEC TION INFORMATION SEE FA R 3.104
 Past Performance, Customer
Satisfaction
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

Final Factor Rating

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

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 29 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
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 30 Version 10-06-06

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

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 31 Version 10-06-06

SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104
 Offeror’s Proposed Task Order
(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
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 32 Version 10-06-06

SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104
 Significant Weaknesses
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 33 Version 10-06-06

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

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 34 Version 10-06-06

SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104
 Cost/Price
SUMMARY OF COST P(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)
(b) (6)
Overall Acceptability
Rough O
Cost Realism
Risk of Cost Growth
Program
Reasonableness
Realism
Cost Growth Risk
Tucso
Reasonableness
Realism
Risk of Cost Growth
Offeror’
Reasonableness
Realism
Risk of Cost Growth
Reasonableness and Realism were based on the
comparison of costs. The Technical Solutions w
solution.

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 35 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.

Offeror " ~1" ’u~sL Task" Cos~, Growth Risk

Boeing (b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)
Lockheed Martin

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 36 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 the judgment of
the SSEB and the Source Selection Authority
(SSA), the Boeing Company proposal offers the
Best Overall Value in meeting the SBInet
Objectives and is Most Advantageous to the
Government because of the vast superiority of
Boeing’s technical solution and combined
performance/cost risk.

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 37 Version 10-06-06

SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104
Questions?

F’F(OCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE Page 38Version 10-6-06

SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104