FUNDAMENTO TEÓRICO 2.1 GENERALIDADES

Life Cycle Management and Open Systems Strategy, both of which should be documented in the Offeror's Open Systems Management Plan (OSMP), demonstrates a thorough, adequate, and feasible, strategy for the insertion of COTS technologies and other reusable NDI into the SYSTEM NAME and demonstrates that COTS, other reusable NDI, and other components can be logistically supported throughout the system's life cycle. 2. Factor: System Compliance with OSA Guidance In evaluating the System Compliance with OSA Guidance, the

Government will use information in the proposal to assess the degree to which the Offeror’s approach complies with PEO-specified (or Service Enterprise) Technical Guidance Points as identified in Table A of Section L.

3. Factor: Management Approach

In evaluating the Management Approach, the Government will use information in the proposal to assess the degree to which the Offeror’s approach facilitates competition at various levels (tiers) of the offered modular system, awards significant portions of the overall system to third-party sources, and uses Integrated Product Teams (IPT) to improve processes, manage risk, and increase efficiency. The

Government will also assess the metrics approach proposed to measure OSA performance and reuse efficiency.

4. Factor: Data Rights, Computer Software Rights and Patent Rights

In evaluating the Data Rights and Patent Rights, the Government will use information in the proposal to assess the extent to which the rights in technical data (TD), computer software (CS), computer software

72

documentation (CSD), and inventions/patents offered to the Government ensure unimpeded, innovative, and cost effective

production, operation, maintenance, and upgrade of the [SYSTEM

NAME] throughout its life cycle; allow for open and competitive

procurement of [SYSTEM NAME] enhancements; and permit the

transfer of the [SYSTEM NAME] non-proprietary object code and

source code to other contractors for use on other systems or platforms. 5. Factor: Data, Software and Patent Rights

The Government will evaluate Data, Software and Patent Rights using information in the proposal to assess the extent to which the rights in Technical Data (TD), Computer Software (CS), Computer Software Documentation (CSD), and inventions/patents offered to the Government ensure unimpeded, innovative, and cost effective

production, operation, maintenance, and upgrade of the [SYSTEM

NAME] throughout its life cycle; allow for open and competitive

procurement of [SYSTEM NAME] enhancements; and permit the

transfer of [SYSTEM NAME] TD, CSD and CS to other systems or

platforms.

Proposals will not be rated as less than ACCEPTABLE on this factor solely because an Offeror does not offer a price for the Government Purpose Rights Option CLIN. However, ratings on this factor for proposals to deliver TD, CSD, or SW with less than the minimum rights specified for the Government by applicable statute (10 U.S.C. 2320) and regulation (DFARS 252.227-7013, 252.227-7014, and 252.227-7015) may be negatively impacted. For noncommercial acquisitions, these rights include: Unlimited Rights in TD (as specified in DFARS 252.227-7013(b)(1)) and CS and CSD (as specified in DFARS 252.227-7014(b)(1)); Limited Rights in TD (as specified in DFARS 252.227-7013(b)(3)); and Restricted Rights in CS (as specified in DFARS 252.227-7014(b)(3)). The minimum rights considered for TD associated with commercial item acquisitions are specified in DFARS 252.227-7015(b)(1). For commercial SW acquisitions, evaluation of the offered rights will assess their consistency with Federal procurement law and satisfaction of Government user needs in accordance with the policy in DFARS 227.7202-1(a).

Ratings on this factor for proposals to deliver TD, CSD, or SW with more than the minimum rights specified for the Government by applicable statute and regulation may be positively impacted. [Note to Preparers: Program Managers should seek to encourage Offerors to reuse components and sub-components where cost-effective or when overall system performance will be enhanced, accelerated

73 delivery schedules supported, or system development risks reduced. Reuse should be supported by an appropriate business case.] 6. Factor: Reuse of Existing Components, Sub-components or

Software

In evaluating the Offeror’s proposal, the Government will assess the extent that the proposed solution reuses existing, proven components, subcomponents and COTS in a cost-effective manner. The Offeror should quantify the cost savings and schedule impacts associated with reuse of existing components. The Government values cost-effective reuse of products that have already been developed by the Government or by Contractors using Government funding (and where the

Government has at least Government Purpose Rights). Other candidates for reuse include commercially available products that offer proven system performance or cost advantages over potential newly developed products. Offers that maximize reuse of proven components are more likely to reduce project cost and schedule and performance risks. Proposals demonstrating cost-effective reuse of products that have already been developed by the Government or cost-attractive commercial products that have been previously accepted by the Government and that have been validated and verified by DoD Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process (DIACAP) as meeting all Information Assurance requirements already will receive a more favorable rating. Proof of reuse will be based on evidence presented in the response showing how those modules will be incorporated into the system architecture. Additional information should be provided on the evaluation of prospective components and subcomponents, including how existing components were found in Government libraries/sites like DISA's Forge.mil, Navy's SHARE, the Navy PEO C4I's NESI, etc.

[Note to Preparers: Program Managers should include a subfactor for evaluating the completeness and adequacy of the delivered data. See “Intellectual Property Rights and Data Rights” discussion in Chapter I. Program Managers should consider evaluation of the data rights packages offered as part of best value determinations. An Offeror who proposes only those rights required by statute and states their intention to provide technical data developed exclusively at private expense with limited rights cannot be rated "Unacceptable". Those who offer more favorable data rights packages can be positively rewarded by being graded with adjectival ratings such as "Good", "Excellent", and "Superior." Offering the rights to which the Government is statutorily entitled should result in an “Acceptable” technical data rights

74

evaluation score -- offering less than the rights statutorily entitled would result in an "Unacceptable" rating.]

7. Factor: Past Performance

[Note to Preparers: The following are only suggested OSA-specific past performance evaluation criteria. Other past performance criteria should be added as appropriate as additional subfactors.]