Evaluation and Award

1
Evaluation and Award
2
Basis of Award (M.1)

• M.1.1 The Government desires to make three awards
  as a result of this solicitation (subject to the
  conditions described in M.1.2 below). The
  Government will select for award the proposals
  which represent the best value to the Government
  as described below. There are four evaluation
  factors (i) Technical, (ii) Logistics
  Commonality, (iii) Cost, and (iv) Past
  Performance/Small Business Participation. The
  relative order of importance of these factors
  (and subfactors and elements where applicable)
  are described below. Notwithstanding the non-cost
  factors importance relative to cost, cost may
  play a deciding role in decisions for multiple
  awards to achieve program balance. Examples
  include 1) a proposal rated higher in the
  non-cost factors, but higher cost may not be
  selected in favor of several lower rated, but
  lower cost, proposals, 2) a combination of lower
  rated proposals may be selected in lieu of award
  of a fewer number of higher rated but more costly
  proposals. Additionally, technical diversity may
  play a deciding role in decisions for multiple
  awards. For example, several highly rated
  non-cost proposals which are similar to each
  other may not be selected in favor of other lower
  rated, but dissimilar proposals to achieve
  technical diversity. When proposals non-cost
  factors are essentially equal, cost to the
  Government may be controlling in determining the
  successful offerors, subject to program balance
  and technical diversity.

3
Basis of Award (M.1) (continued)

• M.1.2 The evaluation of proposals submitted in
  response to this solicitation shall be conducted
  on a source selection basis utilizing a
  "trade-off" process to obtain the best value to
  the Government. The Government will weigh the
  evaluated proposal (other than the Cost Factor)
  against the evaluated cost to the Government. As
  part of the best value determination, the
  relative strengths, weaknesses and risks of each
  proposal shall be considered in selecting the
  offer that is most advantageous and represents
  the best overall value to the Government. As part
  of the trade-off determination, the relative
  strengths/weaknesses and risks of each proposal,
  shall be considered in selecting the offer(s)
  which represents the best overall value to the
  Government. The Government reserves the right to
  make less than three awards if the value of
  additional awards up to three would offer only
  limited benefit to achieving program and TD goals
  and objectives or based on affordability of three
  awards. Conversely, the Government may make more
  than three awards provided that the additional
  awards provide value to achieving program and TD
  goals and objectives commensurate to the cost of
  the additional awards, subject to affordability.
  The Government may make no contract award where
  it concludes that no proposal exists with a
  reasonable probability of achieving program and
  TD goals and objectives.

4
Evaluation Approach

• Evaluate only three Proposal Subconfigurations
  (4 prototyped in TD)
• JLTV-A-GP JLTV-A-GP Trailer
• JLTV-B-IC JLTV-B-IC-USMC (only if
  different) Trailer
• JLTV-C-UTL JLTV-C-UTL Trailer
• System Description for basis of Technical and
  Logistics Commonality Factors.
• The offeror shall provide the proposed vehicle
  and trailer concept/design for each of the three
  Proposal Sub-configurations. These descriptions
  shall be consistent with the offeror's proposal
  for Integrated System Maturity, Performance, and
  Logistics Commonality and may include text,
  photos, illustrations and model/drawing extracts.
  The description shall include subsystem and
  component selections if completed. The offeror
  shall also address the proposed balance of
  Performance (Mobility and Transportability),
  Force Protection and Payload requirements and
  discuss the approach used to obtain that balance.
  It is recommended that the system descriptions
  be presented in no more than 25 pages for each
  Proposal Sub-configuration.

5
Evaluation Criteria -Relative Order of Importance
(M.4)
Logistics Commonality
Cost
Technical
Past Performance/ Small Business Participation

gtgt
gtgtgt
Factors
Past Performance
Sub- Factors
Integrated System Maturity

gtgt
Performance
Small Business Participation
Legend gtgtgt Significantly More Important gtgt More
Important gt Slightly More Important Approximatel
y Equal

6
Technical Factor (M.4.1)
Integrated System Maturity
Performance
Sub Factors

JLTV-A-GP
Transportability
Elements
JLTV-B-IC-USMC
Mobility
JLTV-C-UTL
Force Protection
Program Mgt
Payload

• Elements are Approximately Equal within each
  subfactor.

Legend gtgtgt Significantly More Important gtgt More
Important gt Slightly More Important Approximatel
y Equal
Only if different
7
Integrated System Maturity SubFactor Elements 1
thru 3 - Self Assessment

• L.4.1.1 For Integrated System Maturity Elements
  1-3,
• a. provide a self-assessment of the level of
  maturity of each proposal Sub-configuration,
• The offeror's self-assessment will address four
  considerations 1) System Design Maturity, 2)
  System Reliability Maturity, 3) System
  Maintainability Maturity and 4) System C4I
  Maturity.
• For each consideration, the offeror will identify
  the level of maturity of its proposed system
  based on the definitions contained in Attachment
  24. based upon the proposal configurations
  characterized in the offeror's System Description
  ...
• It is recommended that the self-assessment be
  limited to 1 page for each of the three Proposal
  Sub-configurations.

M.4.1.1 Integrated System Maturity Subfactor. The
Integrated System Maturity Subfactor includes the
following 4 Elements (Elements 1-3) the three
proposal sub-configurations and (4) Program
Management. These Elements are approximately
equal in importance. M.4.1.1.1 For each of the
three Proposal Sub-configuration Elements, the
Government will assess the probability/risk that
the Subconfigurations will achieve program
requirements, on a system integrated basis at the
conclusion of the TD phase (27 months from
contract award), based on the following
considerations a. The extent and credibility of
system design maturity b. The extent and
credibility of system reliability maturity c.
The extent and credibility of system
maintainability maturity d. The extent and
credibility of system C4I maturity
8
Integrated System Maturity SubFactor Elements 1
thru 3 - Substantiating Data

• L.4.1.1 b. The self-assessment shall be
  accompanied by substantiating data supporting the
  offeror's self-assessments of the maturity
  level achieved for 1) System Design Maturity, 2)
  System Reliability Maturity, 3) System
  Maintainability Maturity and, 4) System C4I
  Maturity.
• The offeror shall provide substantiating data for
  each achieved maturity characteristic, within
  each maturity level identified in Attachment 24.
• The resulting technical information,
  documentation, test data and rationale shall be
  complete, specific, and relevant only to the
  specific maturity characteristics the offeror's
  self-assessment asserts were achieved.
• If the substantiating data for one proposal
  sub-configuration is the same as data cited for
  another proposal sub-configuration, then
  reference the previously provided data and do not
  provide duplicate data.

• M.4.1.1.3 Substantiating Data. The primary
  purpose of the substantiating data submitted for
  the integrated system maturity subfactor is to
  document and verify the achievement and
  credibility of the offerors proposed maturity
  level. The Government will review the
  substantiating data in the breadth and depth
  necessary to conduct its assessment of the
  offerors integrated system maturity, but the
  review may be less than a complete evaluation of
  every aspect of all substantiating data submitted
  for this factor.
• Other factors require submission of specifically
  identified information and supporting data for
  that information. Offerors are required to submit
  the information and supporting data required for
  the other factors by separate stand alone
  submission.
• Offerors may not assume that substantiating data
  submitted for the integrated system maturity
  subfactor and elements will be considered for the
  other factors, subfactors and elements of the
  proposal.
• However, the Government reserves the right to
  utilize the technical maturity substantiatingdata
  in other areas of the evaluation at its sole
  discretion.

9
Attachment 24 - Integrated System Maturity Levels
System Design Maturity

• The below levels are cumulative any level
  achieved must include achievement of all lower
  levels (except for Level 3, which if achieved and
  supported with data, will demonstrate additional
  confidence and risk avoidance).
• Level 4 serves as an anchor point for design
  higher levels can not deviate fundamentally from
  the design achieved at that level.
• Level 1 Completed Concept System Analysis
• Design Approach Identified
• Trade Areas Identified
• Concept Drawings Of Sub-configuration Vehicles
  / Trailer
• Initial Weight Budgets Developed
• Initial Space Claim Budgets Developed For Major
  Systems (Crew, Power Train, Payload, Etc)
• Level 2 Completed Preliminary Design Analysis
• Major Trade Solutions Identified
• System Architecture(s) Identified
• MS Efforts Required To Support Preliminary
  Design Are Complete
• Allocation Of Key Requirements To Sub-systems
  And Components E.G. SWAP-C
• Major Components And Sub-systems Selected
• Preliminary CAD Drawings Complete For Major
  Sub-systems And Their Interfaces
• Level 3 Completed System Physical Mock-up
• Fabrication of Stationary Physical
  Representation (Non-functional) Completed -
  Includes Interior Systems (May Be Functional Or
  Non-functional)

10
Integrated System Maturity Subfactor Element 4

• L.4.1.2 For the Integrated System Maturity
  Element of Program Management (Element 4), the
  offeror's proposal will address the
  considerations of 1) Systems Engineering Process,
  2) CMMI Certification Levels and 3) Schedule, as
  follows
• L.4.1.2.1 Systems Engineering Process. Describe,
  for (a) through (e) below, the systems
  engineering processes to be employed in
  performance of the Technology Development
  Contract (to the extent the processes are
  different from the processes used in the
  development of any hardware prototypes or concept
  designs discuss the differences)
• a. Identify the systems engineering and design
  engineering processes and tools, and their level
  of certification or maturity.
• b. Discuss reliability, maintainability,
  safety, and human factors engineering
  considerations and their integration into the
  overall systems engineering approach.
• c. Describe the requirements management
  processes and supporting tools to be used to
  ensure traceability, validation, and verification
  through the development process.
• d. Describe how physical and functional
  interface requirements and interdependencies are
  identified. Specifically include a discussion of
  performance modeling and simulation studies,
  trade studies, analyses and other design
  processes and methods to validate the design and
  allocation of requirements.
• e. Describe the Risk Management approach.

• M.4.1.1.2 For the Program Management Element
  (Element 4), the Government will assess the
  probability/risk that the Offeror will achieve
  program requirements, at the conclusion of TD (27
  months from contract award), based on the
  following considerations
• a. The proposed approach to the systems
  engineering processes to be employed in meeting
  the system engineering requirements of the
  Technology Development Contract.

11
Integrated System Maturity Subfactor - Element 4
(continued)

• L.4.1.2.2 CMMI Certification Level. The Offeror
  shall identify their current CMMI Certification
  Level and the current CMMI Certification Level of
  all major industry partners and sub-contractors
  involved in the design, development and
  integration efforts of the contract. For each
  identified CMMI Certification, the Offeror shall
  identify the role (e.g. Systems Integrator,
  Automotive Subsystem Developer, Diagnostics
  Software Developer, etc) of that entity in the
  execution of the Technology Development phase and
  provide copies of the CMMI Certification
  documentation citing the certification levels.
• L.4.1.2.3 Schedule. The Offeror shall provide
  their schedule to support the Accomplishments in
  the Government Integrated Master Plan (IMP). This
  schedule shall be based upon the effort required
  to develop the JLTV FoV per Section C and E of
  this solicitation to delivery of test vehicles.
  The schedule shall be provided in any scheduling
  format referenced in CDRL A003. The schedule
  shall also include a thorough Resource Loading,
  by Calendar Year quarter, of the direct costs
  (labor, material, subcontracts (with material and
  labor within the subcontracts identified), ODCs,
  etc) proposed to be incurred during the
  performance of tasks within that quarter. The
  Resource Loading shall track directly with the
  Cost Factor proposal and, for labor, shall
  include the labor categories and hours for all
  direct cost labor activity (prime and team
  members/subcontractors).

• M.4.1.1.2 For the Program Management Element
  (Element 4), the Government will assess the
  probability/risk that the Offeror will achieve
  program requirements, at the conclusion of TD (27
  months from contract award), based on the
  following considerations
• b. The level of CMMI Certification of the prime
  Offeror, major industry partners and
  subcontractors participating in the design,
  development and integration efforts of the
  contract. CMMI level certifications will be
  considered progressively more advantageous the
  greater the CMMI certification level achieved (to
  include consideration of the extent of effort
  being performed by the prime Offeror, industry
  partners and ubcontractors). However, no
  evaluation credit will be given for any entity in
  a software development role with a CMMI
  certification of less than three (see
  Responsibility)
• c. The proposal risk probability that, based on
  the proposed JLTV schedule and resource loading,
  the Offeror will achieve program requirements at
  the conclusion of TD (27 months from contract
  award).

12
Technical Performance Subfactor

• M.4.1.2 Performance Subfactor. The Government
  will assess the Offeror's proposed Performance in
  the following four Elements 1) Transportability
  2) Mobility 3) Force Protection 4) Payload.
  These four elements are approximately equal in
  importance. Under the Performance Subfactor and
  for each element, the Government will assess the
  three proposal sub-configurations as follows
• a. where the PD requirements in Attachment 26
  identifies objectives, the Government will assess
  the extent to which the Offeror's proposed
  performance levels satisfy the PD objective
  performance. And
• b. the proposal risk probability that, for the
  PD requirements in Attachment 26, the Offeror
  will achieve (1) PD threshold performance levels,
  and (2) any offeror proposed performance above PD
  threshold levels up to objective performance
  levels.
• M.4.1.2.1-7 Objective performance Must be
  included in resulting contract to receive
  evaluation credit

• L.4.2 Performance. The Performance Subfactor will
  address four (4) elements 1) transportability, 2)
  mobility, 3) force protection and 4) payload for
  each of the three proposal sub-configurations.
  The only Purchase Description requirements to be
  evaluated under this Performance subfactor are
  those listed in Attachment 26. Based on your
  system description, identify in the compliance
  matrix (Attachment 26) the proposed level of
  performance for each requirement listed in the
  matrix. Additionally, provide the data specified
  in Attachment 25.

13
Attachment 26 Compliance Matrix
14
Logistics Commonality Factor

• L.5 Logistics Commonality. The Offeror shall
  identify, through the completion of the
  Commonality Matrix (Attachment 27), the extent of
  commonality across the three proposal
  sub-configurations, as defined in the proposed
  system descriptions (L.4). In completing the
  Commonality Matrix, follow the instructions
  contained in Attachment 27.

• M.4.2 Logistics Commonality Factor. The
  Government will evaluate the submission of the
  Commonality Matrix (Attachment 27) and assess the
  extent to which the Offeror's proposed
  Commonality credibly achieves the Army/USMC JLTV
  acquisition objective of reducing the JLTV
  Logistics footprint through parts commonality
  across the three proposal sub-configurations.

15
Attachment 27 Commonality Matrix
16
Cost Factor

• L.6 Cost Volume Electronic and in US Currency
• L.6.3 Cost and Pricing information should be
  provided as described below
• L.6.3.1 Provide proposed costs for each Contract
  Line Item Number (CLIN) in Section B of this
  solicitation.
• L.6.3.2 For each CLIN, include a top-level
  spreadsheet organized by cost element ( i.e.
  Direct Labor, Subcontracts, Material, Other
  Direct Costs, Overhead/Indirect, Fee, etc.). The
  cost breakdown must be consistent with your cost
  accounting system. Provide the following
  information in support of each top-level
  spreadsheet
• .
• .
• .
• .
• .

M.4.3The Offeror's proposal shall be
evaluated as an assessment of the most probable
cost to the Government based on an evaluation of
the realism and reasonableness of the Offeror's
proposed cost and fee. Affordability will also be
considered. The Defense Contract Audit Agency
(DCAA) may be requested to verify rates and
projections. A financial capability risk
assessment may be performed as well. a. Cost
Realism whether the cost accurately reflects
the Offeror's proposed effort The result of the
realism evaluation will be a determination of the
most probable cost to the Government . The most
probable cost, rather than the proposed cost,
shall be used in the trade-off evaluation to
determine best value. The most probable cost will
be determined by If an Offeror proposes Cost
Sharing, the evaluated cost used for trade-off
purposes will be the most probable cost to the
Government, based on the cost sharing clause to
be included in the contract. b. Cost
Reasonableness IAW FAR 31.201-3. c. Total
Evaluated Cost most probable cost for all
CLINs in the solicitation, as adjusted by any
Government Cost Realism adjustments, d. Cost
Sharing Risk Assessment If an Offeror proposes
Cost Sharing, the Government may do a risk
assessment of whether such a cost sharing
arrangement would pose an unacceptable risk of
performance.
17
Past Performance SubFactor (L.7.1)

• M.4.4.1 Past Performance Subfactor. We will
  conduct a past performance evaluation to assess
  performance risks, which are defined as those
  risks associated with an Offeror's likelihood of
  success in performing the solicitation's
  requirements. The subfactor assessment of Past
  Performance will be based on the Offeror's and
  significant subcontractor's current and past
  record of contract performance, of contracts
  performed within approximately the last 3 years
  as it relates to the probability that the Offeror
  will successfully accomplish the required effort.
  When addressing performance risk, the Government
  will focus its inquiry on the offerors and
  significant subcontractors' record of performance
  as related to program requirements including
• a. System Integration development activity
  involving the balancing of Transportability,
  Force Protection and Mobility requirements.
• b. System Integration development activity
  involving integration of C4I subsystems onto
  mobility platforms.
• c. System Integration development activity to
  achieve reliability requirements on mobility
  platforms.
• M.4.4.1.1 Considerations We will consider the
  record of the following for both hardware and
  data
• a. Technical Conformance to specifications and
  standards of good workmanship
• b. Delivery Adherence to delivery schedules
• c. Cost Adherence to cost estimates
• M.4.4.1.2 Negative prior performance
  Significant achievements, problems, or lack of
  relevant data in any element of the work can
  become an important consideration in the source
  selection process. The existence of negative
  prior performance findings may result in a
  rating, which reflects elevated performance risk.
  Therefore, offerors are reminded to include all
  relevant past efforts, including any
  demonstrated corrective actions, in their
  proposal. Offerors without a record of relevant
  Past Performance, upon which to base a meaningful
  performance risk prediction, will be rated as
  "Unknown Risk", which is neither favorable nor
  unfavorable.

• Submit Past Performance Questionnaire(s),
  Self-Assessment, and Matrix as specified in
  Section L
• Provide information for a quantity of up to four
  (4) recent, relevant contracts for (i) you, and
  (ii) each of your proposed significant
  subcontractor(s).
• Recent includes performance of contracts
  occurring within approximately three (3) years of
  the date of issuance of this RFP.
• Relevant prior performance includes activity
  involving the following scope of work activities
• (a) System Integration development activity
  involving the balancing of Transportability,
  Force Protection and Mobility requirements.
• (b) System Integration development activity
  involving integration of C4I subsystems onto
  mobility platforms.
• (c) System Integration development activity to
  achieve reliability requirements on mobility
  platforms
• Significant subcontractors are defined as team
  members, partners or first or second tier
  subcontractors performing more than 10M or 10of
  the total value of the Offeror's proposal,
  whichever is less.

18
Small Business Participation SubFactor (L.7.2)

• Applies to every Offeror (U.S. large and small
  business and non-U.S.), regardless of size status
  or location of its manufacturing facility or
  headquarters.
• All offerors identify the extent to which U.S.
  small business concerns would be utilized as
  first-tier subcontractors. (see definitions in
  L.2.1) Interdivisional transfers are considered
  subcontracts includes prime Offeror
  participation if the prime is a U.S. small
  business concern.
• All offerors are to provide the names of small
  business concerns who would participate in the
  proposed contract. This data shall be provided in
  a table format as prescribed in Section L.7.2.3.
  
• Offerors who ARE a U.S. large business ... or a
  firm that has previously performed a contract
  containing FAR 52.219-9, are to provide a
  description of their performance including
  documentation of their accomplishment of the
  goals established under Subcontracting Plans of
  prior contracts. This data shall include
  contracts performed over the last three 3
  calendar years. Firms that have never held a
  contract incorporating FAR 52.219-9, shall so
  state.
• Offerors who ARE NOT a U.S. large business or a
  firm who has previously performed a contract
  containing FAR 52.219-8, shall substantiate their
  proposed approach to meeting the requirement of
  FAR 52.219-8.

• M.4.4.2.2.1 The extent to which the proposal
  achieves the goal of 45 participation by U.S.
  small business concerns (to include, as described
  above, the participation of the Offeror if it is
  a U.S. small business concern). The extent of
  participation of such concerns will be evaluated
  in terms of the percentage of the total
  subcontract amount (to include, as described
  above, the extent of participation of the Offeror
  if it is a U.S. small business concern)
• M.4.4.2.2.2 The extent to which the proposal
  achieves the goal of 7 participation by U.S.
  small disadvantaged business concerns (to
  include, as described above, the participation of
  the Offeror if it is a U.S. small disadvantaged
  business concern). The extent of participation of
  such concerns will be evaluated in terms of the
  percentage of the total subcontract amount (to
  include, as described above, the extent of
  participation of the Offeror if it is a U.S.
  small disadvantaged business concern)
• M.4.4.2.2.3 The extent to which the proposal
  proposes meaningful collective participation by
  other U.S. small business concerns including
  WOSB, VOSB, SDVOSB, HUBZone SB, and/or HBCU/MIs
  (to include, as described above, the
  participation of the Offeror if it is a U.S.
  WOSB, VOSB, SDVOSB, HUBZone SB, and/or HBCU/MIs
  concern). Offerors should note that the Army's FY
  08 subcontracting goals are WOSB 7, HUBZone SB
  3, SDVOSB 1, and VOSB 3. The extent of
  participation of such concerns will be evaluated
  in terms of the percentage of the total
  subcontract amount (to include, as described
  above, the extent of participation of the Offeror
  if it is a U.S. WOSB, VOSB, SDVOSB, HUBZone SB,
  and/or HBCU/MIs concern).
• M.4.4.2.2.4 The extent to which proposed
  subcontracting to U.S. Small Business includes
  the furnishing of complex items/services (with
  the goal being U.S. Small Business concerns
  supplying items/services of extreme complexity).
• M.4.4.2.2.5 An assessment of the probability that
  the Offeror will satisfy the requirements of FAR
  52.219-8/9 (as applicable to the Offeror) and
  achieve the levels of Small Business
  Participation identified in the proposal. This
  assessment will be based upon both (a) a proposal
  risk assessment of the offerors proposed Small
  Business Participation approach, and (b) a
  performance risk assessment of prior achievements
  (past performance) in satisfying commitments and
  requirements under FAR 52.219-8/9.

19
Organizational Conflict of Interest (L.9)

• L.9.1 The provisions of FAR 9.5, "Organizational
  Conflict of Interest" (OCOI), applies to any
  award under this solicitation. Potential offerors
  should review their current and planned
  participation in any other Government contracts,
  subcontracts, consulting, or teaming arrangements
  where they may be in a position of actual or
  perceived bias or unfair competitive advantage. A
  common example with the potential for OCOI is
  where an entity performs work both as a system
  contractor/subcontractor and as a Government
  support contractor for Government offices
  involved in JLTV or related programs.
• L.9.2 Offerors should disclose any potential OCOI
  situations to the Contracting Officer as soon as
  identified including prior to proposal
  submission. The disclosure should include the
  facts and an analysis of the actual or perceived
  conflict and a recommended approach(es) to
  neutralize or mitigate the potential conflict.
  The preferred approach to potential conflicts is
  to negate/obviate the conflict. Mitigation is
  considered only if it is not practical to
  negate/obviate the conflict. The Contracting
  Officer will promptly respond to resolve any
  potential conflicts.

20
Organizational Conflict of Interest (H.1)

• H.1.1 The Contractor and its subcontractors,
  consultants, parents, subsidiaries, joint
  ventures, or other business affiliates of any
  tier may be excluded from performing under this
  JLTV contract if the Contracting Officer finds an
  organizational conflict of interest due to bias
  or unfair competitive advantage. A similar
  provision is expected to apply to follow-on JLTV
  solicitations and contracts. Exceptions may be
  granted by modification to the contract for
  relationships where the Government agrees that
  either 1) the potential for bias or unfair
  competitive advantage is essentially
  non-existant, 2) a means of controlling the
  relationship to effectively neutralize the
  potential conflict can be reached, or 3) there is
  no way to perform the Governments requirements
  without such potential. This restriction begins
  on the date of award of this contract or any
  subcontract or other relationship hereunder and
  expires on the completion of the
  contract/subcontract.
• H.1.2 The Contractor shall flow down this
  provision in any subcontracts or other related
  instruments (of all tiers). The Contractor shall
  monitor activities of itself and subcontractors
  and related entities, and promptly disclose any
  actual or potential OCOI and any actions taken or
  proposed to negate or mitigate such conflicts.
• H.1.3 Remedies. For breach of any of the above
  restrictions or for nondisclosure or
  misrepresentation of any relevant facts required
  to be disclosed concerning this contract, the
  Government may terminate the contract for
  default, disqualify the Contractor for subsequent
  related contractual efforts and pursue such other
  remedies as may be permitted by law or this
  contract.

21
Responsibility FAR Part 9.1

• FAR 9.103 and 9.104 apply
• Special Standard of Responsibility All entities
  performing in a software development role must
  have a CMMI certification of three or better.
  Proposed performance of software development by
  any entity (prime, sub, or other performing
  organization) who is not CMMI Level 3 certified,
  as of the date of contract award, will be cause
  for determining the Offeror nonresponsible.

22
Evaluation and Award