Download FY04 Selection and Evaluation Plan

FY04 PET Projects – Selection/Evaluation Plan
Selection and Evaluation Plan for Programming Environment and
Training (PET) FY2004 Projects
1
INTRODUCTION
The High Performance Computing Modernization Office (HPCMO) is soliciting proposals for
the “Programming Environment and Training (PET)” projects. The purpose of PET is to gather
and deploy the best ideas, algorithms, and software tools emerging from the national high
performance computing infrastructure into the DoD user community. The selected projects offer
a vehicle for technology transfer.
A two-step process is being used for the FY04 PET project evaluation and selection process,
consisting of: (1) White Paper with Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost estimate, and (2)
Full Proposals with detailed costs.
The two prime PET contractors, High Performance Technologies, Incorporated and MOS
University Consortium, will use the information contained within this document to develop the
contractor’s solicitation and recommendation plan, and will use the information contained in this
document to evaluate their proposals. The prime contractors will provide to the Government the
white papers and proposals accompanied by a document containing their recommendations with
associated rationale.
The White papers and proposals submitted by the PET prime contractors are the only vehicles
available for receiving consideration for selection. Each must stand on its own merit; only
information provided in the white papers and full proposals can be used in the evaluation process
leading to a selection. They should each be prepared simply and economically, providing
straightforward, concise delineation of the proposed effort and associated capabilities. Only
those proposers submitting white papers assessed as having the most promise of meeting DoD
needs will be asked to submit full proposals. Only these will be considered for selection.
Offerors must submit an electronic (Microsoft Word or PDF format) copy of their White papers
and proposals. Costs in the white paper should be rough order of magnitude (ROM). Full
proposals will not be considered if the detailed costs in the final proposal exceed the ROM costs
by 25%.
2
WHITE PAPER INSTRUCTIONS (FIRST STEP)
Page Limitation: Each white paper is limited to one page, 10 pitch (12 point) or larger, 1.5
spaced, single-sided, 8.5 by 11 inches. This limitation includes all information. The
government will not consider pages in excess of this limitation.
a. The White Paper shall contain the information:
1) Tracking Number:
a. Format is XXX-04-yyy, where XXX is the functional area acronym and yyy
is the number assigned to the proposal by the prime contractor)
2) Title:
3) Principal Investigator and Affiliation:
24 October 2002
1
FY04 PET Projects – Selection/Evaluation Plan
4) Team Members:
5) ROM Cost:
b. The remainder of the White Paper shall include a discussion of the problem, DoD
users/programs requiring this work, team qualifications, and list the interim and final
deliverables.
c. For the ROM cost estimate, no detailed cost support information should be provided.
3
PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS (SECOND STEP)
White papers assessed as best meeting criteria (Section 3.1) will be asked to submit a full
proposal. Only these will be considered for project selection.
a. Page Limitation: Each proposal is limited to 5 pages, 10 pitch (12 point) or larger,
1.5 spaced, single-sided, 8.5x11 inches. This limitation includes all information. The
government will not consider pages in excess of this limitation.
b. The proposal will contain the following information on the first page:
1) Tracking Number:
2) Title:
3) Principal Investigator and Affiliation:
4) Team Members
5) Total Costs
c. The proposal will address a minimum of four sections: Technical/Management, DoD
Mission Relevance, Deliverables, and Cost.
d. Technical/Management Section: The technical/management portion of the proposal
shall be comprised of the statement of the problem, as well as the technical approach
to be used by the offeror. Sufficient detail regarding the scope of work should be
included to judge cost realism. (Appendix A)
e. DoD Mission Relevance: This section shall include the DoD HPC users and
programs who will benefit from this work, as well as how this work assists DoD
efforts. Include contact information for the DoD HPC users.
f. Deliverables: This section shall delineate specific desired accomplishments,
outcomes, and impact, on a timetable specified by the offeror. A minimum of three
deliverables must be listed. The dates of deliverables should be spaced not less than
two months apart. The final report should be included in this count.
g. Cost: A full schedule of costs associated with this proposal must be included for all
team members.
4
EVALUATION
4.1 White Paper (First Step)
The PET COR will assemble an evaluation panel of government personnel to evaluate the
White papers. This panel will determine which of the White papers have the potential to best
24 October 2002
2
FY04 PET Projects – Selection/Evaluation Plan
meet the HPCMP needs based on the following criteria, which are listed in descending order
of importance:
a. Utility of work proposed to the DoD
b. Strength of team
c. Affordability (Proposed ROM cost estimate)
4.2 Proposals (Second Step)
Selections will be made to the offerors whose proposal conforms to the DoD HPC
requirements and is judged to represent the best value to the Government. Those proposals
exceeding 25% over the ROM will be removed from consideration. To arrive at a best value
decision, the PET COR will integrate the Evaluation team’s assessment of the proposal based
on the Proposal Evaluation Factors (Appendix A). While the Government evaluation team
will strive for maximum objectivity, the process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore,
professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. The Government reserves
the right to select or reject any proposal. The Government decision will be final and not
subject to negotiation or discussion.
4.2.1 Evaluation Methodology
The government evaluation team will use a numerical rating system, as well as narrative
findings, to rank the white papers and proposals. The narrative findings will identify
strengths, weaknesses, proposal inadequacies and deficiencies, and reasonableness of cost
factor.
After the evaluation of proposals against the factors is completed and documented, the PET
COR, with the PET management team, will perform an integrated analysis of the
proposals. The integrated analysis will assure a balanced set of projects that best meet the
overall HPC needs of DoD.
5
EVALUATION FACTORS
See Appendix A, Proposal Evaluation Factors.
6
SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
Appendix B contains the schedule for the PET FY2004 PET selection process.
24 October 2002
3
FY04 PET Projects – Selection/Evaluation Plan
APPENDIX A
PROPOSAL EVALUATION FACTORS
Evaluation Methodology
Selection will be based on the evaluation criteria to determine the overall merit of the white
paper and proposal. These evaluation criteria are listed below, in decreasing order of importance.
A numerical rating system, as well as narrative findings will be used to evaluate the proposals.
The narrative findings will identify strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies associated with the
evaluation factors.
Evaluation Criteria
Technical/Management
The technical/management aspect shall be evaluated based on the following criteria, listed in
descending order of importance:
a. Soundness of technical approach
b. Technical expertise of team
c. Soundness of management approach
d. Past performance of team, if applicable
e. Degree and nature of MSI involvement
DoD Mission Relevance
The DoD mission relevance has been separated into two separately evaluated items:
1. Fit of proposal to DoD need
2. Utility of deliverable to DoD HPC community
Deliverables
The deliverables aspect shall be evaluated on the following criteria:
a. Impact and potential broad reuse of deliverable in the DoD HPC community
b. Reasonableness of project timeline
Cost
Cost includes the reasonableness and realism of the proposed cost. Realism is evaluated by
assessing the compatibility of proposed costs with proposal scope and effort. Reasonableness
is evaluated by assessing the acceptability of the cost estimates.
24 October 2002
4
FY04 PET Projects – Selection/Evaluation Plan
APPENDIX B
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Task
1
2
3
4
5
6
Incorporate FY03 lessons learned in SEP
Distribution of SEP to PET prime contractors
KTR Solicitation/Recommendation Plan
Preparation of Solicitation/Recommendation Plan
Solicitation/Recommendation Plans Due
Review of Solicitation/Recommendation Plan
Provide feedback to SRP
White Papers
Preparation of White Papers
White Papers due
White Paper Review
Selection of White Papers for 2nd phase
Submit solicitation list to contracting officers
Requests for Proposals of selected white papers
Proposals
Preparation of Proposals
Recommendations from contractors due
Review of Proposals
Selection of proposals for funding
Notify contracting officers of selection
Determine Cost Reasonableness of Proposals
Conduct technical negotiations
Submit formal request for task orders
Start Projects
24 October 2002
Start
Finish
1-Oct-02
28-Oct-02
28-Oct-02
28-Oct-02
12-Nov-02
13-Nov-02
21-Nov-02
9-Dec-02
9-Dec-02
13-Feb-03
10-Feb-03
19-Mar-03
21-Mar-03
24-Mar-03
26-Mar-03
26-Mar-03
20-May-03
21-May-03
25-Jun-03
7-Jul-03
10-Jul-03
10-Jul-03
28-Jul-03
1-Oct-03
4-Oct-02
28-Oct-02
21-Nov-02
12-Nov-02
12-Nov-02
21-Nov-02
21-Nov-02
4-Mar-03
7-Feb-03
13-Feb-03
21-Feb-03
21-Mar-03
21-Mar-03
25-Mar-03
28-Jul-03
20-May-03
20-May-03
24-Jun-03
30-Jun-03
9-Jul-03
17-Jul-03
28-Jul-03
28-Jul-03
1-Oct-03
5