Draft Section M.docx

TFM-2 DRAFT SIR Section M

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 AMS 3.1-1 CLAUSES AND PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (JULY 2011)

This screening information request (SIR) or contract, as applicable, incorporates by reference the provisions or clauses listed below with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make the full text available, or Offerors and contractors may obtain the full text via Internet at: http://conwrite.faa.gov.

NOTE: Acquisition Management System (AMS) Clauses are updated from time to time. The most current version of each clause listed below applies to this contract during the period of performance.

AMS

CLAUSE

(End of clause)

M.2 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This acquisition is being conducted in accordance with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Acquisition Management System (AMS). Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal is judged to represent the best value to the FAA.

Best value determination will be the combination of the evaluation of technical, cost and past experience/performance for the products and services required to meet the SIR requirements.

Best value does not require that the award be made to either the Offeror submitting the highest rated technical proposal or the Offeror submitting the lowest evaluated cost proposal.

Source Selection will be made on the basis of the evaluation criteria in Section M. The FAA intends to make one (1) award from this solicitation. The FAA reserves the right to award or make no award if such action is determined to be in the FAA’s best interest.

M.2.1 Evaluation Factors and Order of Importance

The FAA will evaluate all Offerors’ proposals in terms of:

Three (3) Technical Factors;

Two (2) Past Experience/Performance Factors;

One (1) Cost Factor;

One (1) Small Business Subcontracting Plan Factor; and One (1) FAA Mentor-Protégé Program Factor.

The Technical Factors are significantly more important than Past Performance/Past Experience Factor. As differences between the Offerors relative to the Technical Factors become smaller, the Past Experience/Performance Factor becomes more important. In aggregate, Technical and Past Experience/Performance are more important than the Cost Factor. As differences between the Offerors relative to the Technical and Past Experience/Performance factors become smaller, the Cost Factor becomes more important.

The Small Business Subcontracting Plan Factor and the FAA Mentor-Protégé Program Factor (Volume IV) will be rated on a pass/fail basis and will not be included in the best value process. Offer and Other Documents (Volume V) will not be rated, but will be used to determine compliance.

Technical is comprised of three equally weighted factors. Each factor is comprised of equally weighted subfactors. The executive summary and dividers in Volume I of the proposal will not be evaluated.

The Past Experience/Performance Factor is comprised of equally weighted factors. Each factor is comprised of equally weighted subfactors.

See following sections for more detail.

M.3 EVALUATION PROCESS

The following sections describe the process by which the FAA will evaluate proposals.

M.3.1 Compliance Review

Each volume of the Offeror’s proposal will first be reviewed to determine whether it follows the requirements of Section L and includes all of the required information. Omission of information or proposals that do not fully conform to Section L requirements may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from award consideration or may impact the resulting evaluation ratings. Any proposals exceeding the page limit requirements identified in Section L will not be evaluated beyond the page limitation.

M.3.2 Eliminating Proposals

The FAA reserves the right to eliminate Offerors from consideration for award prior to a final award decision. Proposals received after the submission deadline will not be evaluated and the Offeror will not be considered for contract award unless the conditions listed in Section L are met.

Proposals that fail to meet the requirements of the solicitation, or are unrealistic in terms of technical content, schedule commitments, or cost, may be deemed reflective of an inherent lack of experience, technical competence or indicative of a failure to comprehend the technical complexity and risks of the contract requirements, and may render the proposal ineligible for further evaluation and no longer considered for contract award.

If at any time during the evaluation process the FAA concludes that an Offeror is not likely to receive award, the FAA may eliminate the Offeror from further consideration for award. Any Offeror eliminated from further consideration will be notified in writing by the CO.

M.3.3 Award Based on Initial Proposal

Offerors are advised that the FAA reserves the right to make an award based on initial proposals received without communications. Offerors must not assume that they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss, or revise their proposal. Offerors are instructed to submit proposals with their most favorable pricing and non-price terms. Offerors are cautioned to consult with the FAA CO before submitting any offer that takes exception to any term or condition of this SIR. The FAA reserves the right to reject any exception for any reason.

M.3.4 Offeror Communications

The FAA reserves the right to communicate with any individual Offeror, or all competing Offerors, as the situation warrants. Communications with one or more Offeror does not require communications with all Offerors. Any information obtained during communications may be used to clarify, substantiate, or validate information provided in Offeror’s proposals.

M.3.5 Responsibility Determination

An Offeror must be determined responsible by the Contracting Officer in order to receive contract award. To be determined responsible, the Offeror must satisfy the standards listed in AMS Section 3.2.2.2 and this solicitation.

Offerors must be technically and financially capable of performing the magnitude and scope of the work. At a minimum, to be determined responsible a prospective Contractor must:

(1) Have or can obtain adequate financial resources to perform the contract;

(2) Have the ability to meet any required or proposed delivery schedules;

(3) Have a satisfactory performance history;

(4) Have a record of integrity and proper business ethics;

(5) Have appropriate accounting and operational controls that may include:

(a) Production control;

(b) Property Control systems;

(c) Quality assurance programs;

(d) Appropriate safety programs; and

(6) Be qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws or regulations.

M.3.6 Assessment of Benefits and Risk

The FAA will not assign a separate rating for benefits and risks. However, the FAA will assess benefit and risk throughout the evaluation. The FAA may quantify and/or provide a narrative of these characteristics identifying impact and likelihood of occurrence and include it in the best value selection process. In addition, the Offeror’s identification of risk and risk mitigation strategies in their own proposals will be considered when evaluating proposed approaches. Failing to sufficiently address risks may lead the FAA to conclude that an Offeror has an inadequate understanding of the requirements, which may be grounds for elimination from the competition. A particular Offeror’s ability to demonstrate an understanding of the risks may be noted among strengths. Likewise, a particular Offeror’s inability to demonstrate an understanding of the risks may be noted among weaknesses.

M.3.7 Technical Evaluation Process

The FAA will:

a) Review, analyze, and consider all information received in each compliant proposal, which will include proposal content and any information received from oral or written communications.

b) Identify the strengths and weaknesses for each sub-factor of each factor in each proposal and provide any quantification and narrative of these characteristics.

c) Rate the Technical Proposal based on the results of the evaluation of factors using Section M.4.1, Table M-1.

M.3.8 Past Experience/Performance Factor Evaluation Process

The FAA will:

a) Review, analyze, and consider the Offeror’s Past Experience narratives and rate each described instance of past experience per Section M.4.2.1, Table M-2.

b) Review, analyze, and consider the Past Performance Surveys submitted by the Offeror’s respective customers and rate each instance of Past Performance per Section M.4.2.2.

M.3.9 Process for Evaluating Cost Proposals

The FAA will evaluate cost proposals in terms of total evaluated cost, reasonableness, cost realism, balance, and completeness/consistency/traceability. In addition, the FAA will evaluate the level of risk assumed by the Offeror in the incentive fee structure proposed for the CPIF CLINs. For each proposal, the government will calculate the Total Evaluated Cost (TEC) in the Cost Template provided as Attachment J-9 to this SIR. See M.4.3 for additional detail.

M.3.10 Small Business Subcontracting Plan Evaluation Process

The FAA will evaluate the Small Business Subcontracting Plan submitted by other than small business Offerors to assess the extent to which the Offeror provides a viable and compliant plan and meets or exceeds the subcontracting goals stated in Section L.7.

The FAA will rate the Small Business Subcontracting Plan volume using Section M.4.4, Table M-3.

If an Offeror receives a rating of “Unacceptable,” they must correct the deficiencies identified by the FAA prior to contract award. The FAA must approve the Subcontracting Plan in order for the Offeror to be awarded the contract. If the apparently successful Offeror fails to propose the required subcontracting goals, that Offeror may be ineligible for award.

This factor is not applicable to small businesses; therefore, all small and small disadvantaged businesses will receive an acceptable rating for this factor.

M.3.11 Evaluation of FAA Mentor-Protégé Program

The FAA will evaluate the Offeror’s standing in the FAA’s Mentor-Protégé Program as stated in Section M.4.5 Table M-4.

If an Offeror receives a rating of “Unacceptable,” they must correct the deficiencies identified by the FAA prior to contract award.

This factor is not applicable to small businesses; therefore, all small and small disadvantaged businesses will receive an acceptable rating for this factor.

M.3.12 Offer and Other Documents Evaluation Process Offer and Other Documents (Volume V) will not be rated, but will be used to determine compliance.

M.4 EVALUATION FACTORS

M.4.1 Technical Evaluation Factors

This section describes the evaluation factors that the Government will use to evaluate the Offeror’s Technical Proposal. The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror addresses each factor and sub-factor to ensure they demonstrate an understanding of the SIR requirements and the degree to which each proposal is comprehensive, viable, substantiated, and consistent. The FAA will adjectivally score each subfactor as follows:

Table M-1: Technical Rating Definitions

Good

The Offeror’s response addresses each sub-factor within each factor and demonstrates a thorough approach to meeting the SIR requirements; and the Offeror’s response gives the FAA a strong degree of confidence that requirements will be met in a timely and cost effective manner; and the impact of identified strengths outweighs the impact of any identified weaknesses and/or their associated risks.

Satisfactory

The Offeror’s response addresses most sub-factors within each factor and demonstrates an adequate approach to meeting the SIR requirements; and the Offeror’s response gives the FAA confidence that the requirements will be met in a timely and cost effective manner; and the impact of any strengths is equivalent to or slightly outweighs the impact of any weaknesses and/or their associated risks.

Marginal

The Offeror’s response does not clearly address each sub-factor within each factor and/or does not demonstrate an adequate approach to meeting the SIR requirements; and the Offeror’s response gives the FAA little confidence that the requirements will be met in a timely and cost effective manner; and the impact of weaknesses, deficiencies, and/or their associated risks outweighs the impact of any strengths.

Unsatisfactory

The Offeror’s response does not address each sub-factor within each factor and/or does not demonstrate an approach to meeting the SIR requirements; and the Offeror’s response does not give the FAA confidence that the requirements will be met in a timely and cost effective manner; and the impact of weaknesses, deficiencies and/or their associated risks greatly outweighs the impact of any strengths.

M.4.1.1 Technical Factor 1: Organization

Sub-factor A: Structure -- The FAA will assess the following for this sub-factor:

· The degree to which the proposed organizational structure is conducive to a successful transition; and

· The degree to which the proposed organizational structure is conducive to successful and efficient execution of the SIR requirements.

Sub-factor B: Staffing -- The FAA will assess the following for this sub-factor:

· The degree to which the proposed key personnel have the qualifications and experience needed to ensure a successful transition; and

· The degree to which the proposed key personnel have the qualifications and experience to ensure successful and efficient execution of the SIR requirements.

Sub-factor C: Communication & Coordination -- The FAA will assess the following for this sub-factor:

· The degree to which the proposed methods of communication and coordination, across the organization, subcontractors, teams, etc. and with Government representatives, will ensure a successful transition; and

· The degree to which the proposed methods of communication and coordination, across the organization, subcontractors, teams, etc. and with Government representatives, will ensure successful and efficient execution of the SIR requirements.

Sub-factor D: Resource Management -- The FAA will assess the following for this sub-factor:

· The degree to which the proposed methods for estimating, allocating and tracking personnel and other resources will ensure a successful transition; and

· The degree to which the proposed methods for estimating, allocating and tracking personnel and other resources will ensure successful and efficient execution of the SIR requirements.

Sub-factor E: Performance Management -- The FAA will assess the following for this sub-factor:

· The degree to which the proposed methods for defining and measuring system and program performance will ensure a successful transition; and

· The degree to which the proposed methods for defining and measuring system and program performance will ensure successful and efficient execution of the SIR requirements.

M.4.1.2 Technical Factor 2: Development & Deployment

Sub-factor A: Requirements -- The FAA will assess the following for this sub-factor:

· The degree to which the proposed methods for defining and managing system and software-level requirements will ensure successful and efficient execution of the SIR requirements.

Sub-factor B: Design and Development -- The FAA will assess the following for this sub-factor:

· The degree to which the proposed methods for defining and managing system and software-level design information will ensure successful and efficient execution of the SIR requirements.

Sub-factor C: Test & Evaluation – The FAA will assess the following for this sub-factor:

· The degree to which the proposed methods for verifying and reporting requirements compliance will ensure successful and efficient execution of the SIR requirements.

Sub-factor D: Deployment -- The FAA will assess the following for this sub-factor:

· The degree to which the proposed methods for planning, preparing for, conducting and evaluating hardware and software deployments, updates and transitions will ensure successful and efficient execution of the SIR requirements.

M.4.1.3 Technical Factor 3: In-Service Management

Sub-factor A: Monitoring & Control – The FAA will assess the following for this sub-factor:

· The degree to which the proposed methods for monitoring and managing system performance will ensure a successful transition; and

· The degree to which the proposed methods for monitoring and managing system performance will ensure successful and efficient execution of the SIR requirements.

Sub-factor B: User Support – The FAA will assess the following for this sub-factor:

· The degree to which the proposed methods for responding to problems and user help requests will ensure a successful transition; and

· The degree to which the proposed methods for responding to problems and user help requests will ensure successful and efficient execution of the SIR requirements.

Sub-factor C: Continuity of Operations – The FAA will assess the following for this sub-factor:

· The degree to which the proposed methods for identifying and mitigating risks will ensure a successful and efficient execution of the SIR requirements (including transition); and

· The degree to which the proposed methods for maintaining and restoring services will ensure successful and efficient execution of the SIR requirements (including transition).

Sub-factor D: Security – The FAA will assess the following for this sub-factor:

· The degree to which the proposed methods for meeting physical and information security requirements will ensure a successful transition and compliance with the SIR requirements.

Sub-factor E: Lifecycle Management – The FAA will assess the following for this sub-factor:

· The degree to which the proposed methods for managing hardware and software assets will ensure a successful transition and compliance with the SIR requirements.

M.4.2 Past Experience/Performance Evaluation Factors

This section describes the evaluation factors that the FAA will use to evaluate the Offeror’s Past Experience and Past Performance submission (including the Past Performance data received from the Offeror’s respective customers). This section defines the sub-factors and elements within each factor.

The FAA will evaluate the Offeror’s Past Experience to assess the level to which the Offeror’s described instances of past experience were for services of a like and similar size, scope and complexity as this requirement.

The FAA will evaluate the results of the Past Performance Surveys submitted by the Offeror’s customers. The Past Performance Surveys must be from those respective customers that represent the work described in the Offeror’s described instances of past experience.

M.4.2.1Past Experience Sub-Factor

Each of the Offeror’s described instances of past experience will be evaluated to assess the level to which that instance of past experience represents work of a similar size, scope and complexity as this requirement and adjectivally scored as follows:

Table M-2: Past Experience Rating Definitions

M.4.2.2 Past Performance Sub-Factor Past Performance will be evaluated based on:

(a) A completed Previous Contract List (in the format as shown per Attachment J-10) that cites the customers for whom the Offeror performed services for the three described instances of Past Experience;

(b) Completed Past Performance Surveys submitted directly from the Offeror’s customers cited in the Previous Contracts List to the Government Contracting Officer; and

(c) A completed Past Performance Survey Record form for EACH customer from whom the Offeror solicited completed Past Performance Surveys (see Attachment J-10).

Offerors must make their best efforts to persuade the customers cited on the Previous Contracts List to complete and submit Past Performance Surveys directly to the FAA Contracting Officer. In addition to the completed Past Performance Surveys, the government reserves the right to contact each customer to obtain information (i.e., more past performance information from that customer on how well the Offeror performed services for the noted customer).

The Past Performance Surveys will provide adjectival ratings from the Offeror’s customers for each of the cited instances of Past Experience. The Survey will also ask the Offeror’s customers to provide written comments relative to the Offeror’s performance for their respective requirement.

The FAA will evaluate the customer responses for each of the Past Performance Survey and adjectivally score as follows:

Table M-3: Past Performance Rating Definitions

The purpose of the Past Performance Survey Record form is to give the Offerors the opportunity to document that they have expended reasonable efforts to ask and persuade their customers to submit completed Past Performance Surveys directly to the FAA to support this competition and evaluation. The FAA reserves the right to contact the Offeror’s customer(s) directly to request submission of the Past Performance Survey (if it is not submitted in a timely fashion) and/or to request additional Past Performance information.

The FAA reserves the right to consider Past Performance data from other sources such as the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). As appropriate, this information may be included and considered in the evaluation documentation and selection process, separately from the Past Performance numeric scoring, as a potential risk or a potential benefit.

M.4.3 Cost Evaluation Factor

The FAA will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for total evaluated cost, cost reasonableness, cost realism, balance, and completeness/consistency/traceability.

M.4.3.1 Total Evaluated Cost (TEC)

For each proposal, the FAA will review cost elements and proposed profit/fee. For evaluation purposes only, the FAA will calculate the TEC using the Cost Template provided at Attachment J-9. With respect to the T&M CLINs, the FAA will include a specified number of hours for each T&M CLIN labor category in the TEC. This is being done for evaluation purposes only and does NOT represent a commitment by the FAA to purchase this amount of service (or mix of labor) under the T&M CLINs planned for inclusion in the anticipated contract.

M.4.3.2 Review Incentive Fee Structures

For each Incentive Fee CLIN, the FAA will review the proposed Incentive Fee structure to assess the degree to which the proposed incentive fee structure will introduce risk or risk reduction for the FAA.

M.4.3.3 Evaluate Reasonableness

The FAA will assess the degree to which each cost proposal is reasonable. A cost/price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. The FAA will make a determination of cost reasonableness based on competition, review of cost elements (including fee structure), and by comparing the TEC of each proposal to the FAA Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE).

M.4.3.4 Evaluate Cost Realism

The FAA will assess the degree to which each cost proposal is realistic. This will include assessing whether the costs in an Offeror's proposal are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the various elements of the Offeror's technical proposal. Realistic costs are verifiable, complete, and accurate, and supported by estimating methodology that is logical, appropriate, and adequately explained. Lack of cost realism may result in the FAA quantifying cost proposal weaknesses and/or deficiencies.

Unrealistically low or high proposed prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirements or has developed and submitted an impracticable and/or unsubstantiated proposal. The burden of proof for credibility rests with the Offeror.

M.4.3.5 Evaluate Balance

The FAA will evaluate each cost proposal to determine whether the Offeror’s proposal is unbalanced with respect to pricing of separately priced line items. An offer is mathematically unbalanced if it is based on costs/prices which are significantly understated for the cost or fee of some contract line items and significantly overstated in relation to cost or fee for others. An Offeror is materially unbalanced if it is mathematically unbalanced and if there is reasonable doubt that the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the FAA (even though it is the lowest evaluated offer); or the offer is so grossly unbalanced that its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advanced payment. Offers that are materially unbalanced may be rejected.

M.4.3.6 Evaluate Completeness/Consistency/Traceability

The FAA will evaluate each cost proposal to determine whether it includes all required pricing information, aligns with summary pricing tables, provides adequate basis of estimates and traceable supporting pricing details. The FAA at its sole discretion may require additional information or reject proposals lacking completeness, consistency, and traceability.

M.4.4 Small Business Subcontracting Plan Evaluation Factor

The FAA will assess whether the Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan adequately demonstrates a viable small business subcontracting methodology, meets the subcontracting goals identified in Section L.7, and meets SIR and AMS content requirements and adjectivally score as follows:

Table M-4: Small Business Subcontracting Plan Rating Definitions

M.4.5 Evaluation of Contractor Participation in FAA Mentor-Protégé Program

Pursuant to FAA AMS Clause 3.6.1-9, Mentor-Protégé Program (included in Section I of the SIR), large and small businesses are encouraged to participate in the FAA pilot Mentor-Protégé Program for the purpose of providing developmental assistance to eligible protégé entities to enhance their capabilities and increase their participation in FAA contracts. The FAA will evaluate the proposed participation and extent of developmental assistance to be provided by mentor firms to protégé firms as an approved mentor firm in the FAA Mentor-Protégé Program and adjectivally score as follows:

Table M-5: Participation in Mentor-Protégé Program Rating Definitions