EXTRACT--ERICSSON, INC.

SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD

REPORT
Secure Border Initiative (SBInet)
Ericsson, Inc.

Evaluation
Factor (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

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

or
Minor

Significant
Major
Minor
Deficiencies

Evaluation Results

Evaluation Factor* Initial Evaluation Final Evaluation

1 - Technical (b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)
 2 - Performance Measures, QASP (b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)
3 - M__3_~ement Plan
4 - Performance Risk
5 - Past Performance
6 - Subcontract Plan
7 - Proposed Task Order

Strengths
Significant (b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

Major
Minor
Weaknesses
Significant (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.

FINAL OVERALL EVALUATION:

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

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

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

PERFORMANCE MEASURES INCENTIVES/DISINCENTIVES, QASP:

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

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

Final Factor Rating

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

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

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

nt

PAST PERFORMANCE, CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)
Possible Confidence Rating

Final Factor Rating

Initial Factor Ratin
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
I 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)
 (b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)
SUBCONTRACT PLAN:

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)

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

PROPOSED TASK 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 Maior
Minor Minor
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)
(b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

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

SUMMARY OF COST PROPOSAL FACTOR RATINGS

Overall Acceptability (b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5)

Rough Order
Cost Realism
Risk of Cost Growth
Program Man
Reasonableness
Realism
Cost Growth Risk
Tucson
Reasonableness
Realism
Risk of Cost Growth
Offeror’s P
Reasonableness
Realism
Risk of Cost Growth

12
Reasonableness and Realism were based on the Offeror’s individual proposetl solution and not
on a comparison of costs. The Technical Solutions were evaluated to determine which Offeror
proposed the best solution.

]3