EXTRACTmNORTHROP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS

CORPORATION
SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD
REPORT
Secure Border Initiative (SBInet)
Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation

Evaluation Boeing Northrop

Factor Grumman
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)
1 - Technical

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
,sal

Strengths
Significant (b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)
Major
Minor
Weaknesses
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)
Significant
Major
Minor
Deficiencies

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104

!
 Evaluation Results

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

Evaluation Factor*
1. Technical
2. Performance Measures, QASP
3. Management Plan
4. Performance Risk
Past Performance
Subcontract Plan
Proposed Task Order
Cost/Price

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

Significant
Major
Minor I
Weaknesses
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)
Significant
Major
Minor
Deficiencies
* Factors 1-4 are considered equal and each is significantly more important that 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.
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104

2
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

t.
m

to

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104

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

TECHNICAL: (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) Significant (b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)
Major Major
Minor Minor
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104

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

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104

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

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104

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

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104

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

ed

al
er

ne

he
on

ic

tion

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104

 PERFORMANCE MEASURES INCENTIVESIDISINCENTIVES, QASP:
(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 SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104

9
 MANAGEMENT PLAN: (b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

Final Factor Rat_~_g_

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

PERFORMANCE RISK:
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)
Final Factor Rati_p_g
Initial Factor Rating
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104

]0
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104

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

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104

12
 PAST PERFORMANCE, CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

Possible Confidence Rating: High, Significant, Satisfactory, Neutral,

Little, or None
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)
Final Factor Rating
Initial Factor Rating
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
Initial Final
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)
Initial Final
Significant Significant (b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)
Major Major
Minor Minor
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

SUBCONTRACT PLAN: (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) Significant (b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)
Major Major
Minor Minor
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104

13
 PROPOSEDTASK ORDER:
(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)
Significant (b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)
Maior Major
Minor Minor
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104

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

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

SUMMARY OF COST P
Overall Acceptability I
Rough Or
Cost Realism
Risk of Cost Growth
Program M
Reasonableness
Realism
Cost Growth Risk
Tucso
Reasonableness
Realism
Risk of Cost Growth
Offeror’s
Reasonableness
Realism
Risk of Cost Growth
Reasonableness and Realism (per FAR defi
proposed solution and not on a comparison of costs. The Technical Solutions were evaluated to
determine which Offeror proposed the best solution.

PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION SEE FAR 3.104