2022 FCT SIR Section M FINAL.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE DRAFT SIR

PART IV– SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

- 1 -

M.1 BASIS FOR AWARD

M.1.1 AWARD SELECTION

The Offerors whose offers conform to the requirements of the solicitation and provide the best value to the FAA will be selected for award. The best value is defined as the proposal that presents the most advantageous solution to the FAA, based on the evaluation of technical, price and other factors specified in the SIR. The best value approach will utilize technical/price trade-offs and does not require that award be made to either the Offeror submitting the highest rated proposal or the Offeror submitting the lowest price, although the ultimate award may be to either one of those Offerors.

In the event that one (1) Offeror proposes on more than two (2) areas in the contiguous United States, the Government will then assign areas among the winning Offerors based upon the offers, which represent the best value to the Government. Since two of the areas are outside of the contiguous United States, a maximum of four (4) contracts/areas may be awarded to one Offeror.

In evaluating the proposals, the Government may conduct written or oral communications with any and/or all Offerors. Additionally, the FAA reserves the right to conduct discussions and negotiations with any individual competing Offeror, or all competing Offerors, as the situation warrants. Discussions with one or more Offerors do not require discussions with all Offerors.

The FAA reserves the right not to make an award if such action is in its best interest. Each offer will be evaluated separately for each area.

Offerors are cautioned not to minimize the importance of a detailed adequate response in any one of the factors.

M.1.2 ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

The basis for award will be made against the evaluation factors contained in section M and the FAA's characterization of the risk involved in making an award to an Offeror. All factors will be considered in the evaluation for award. The following evaluation factors are listed in descending order of importance:

1. Technical Proposal

2. Corporate and Management

3. Past Performance

4. Price

- 2 -

The Technical Proposal will be rated. The definitions are as follows:

Rating Definition

Excellent The proposal exceeds the fullest expectations of the

FAA. The offeror has convincingly demonstrated that the SIR’s requirements have been analyzed, evaluated and synthesized into approaches, plans and techniques that, when implemented, should result in an excellent, innovative, effective, efficient and economical performance under the contract, and risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good The proposal is fully compliant with the SIR requirements. In terms of the specific factor, sub-factor, or sub-element, the proposal demonstrates a level of effort that meet the SIR’s requirement in a well organized, effective manner and that this effort could produce results which should prove substantially beneficial to the FAA’s program, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Satisfactory The proposal adequately addresses most SIR requirements and may contain some weaknesses. An assigned rating of “satisfactory” indicates that, in terms of the specific factor, sub-factor, or sub-element any weaknesses noted are of such a nature that should not seriously affect the Offerors performance. A rating of satisfactory is used when the proposal meets the requirement of the SIR, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal The proposal contains a number of weaknesses that are not offset by strengths in other areas. A rating of “marginal” indicates that, in terms of the specific factor, or sub-factor, or sub-element, the Offeror may satisfactorily perform the assigned tasks, but risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unsatisfactory The proposal does not adequately address the specific factor, sub-factor, or sub-element. The offerors interpretation of the FAA’s requirements is so superficial, incomplete, vague, incompatible, incomprehensible, or incorrect as to be unsatisfactory.

An assigned rating of “unsatisfactory” indicates that the evaluator feels that mandatory corrective action would be required to prevent deficiencies from affecting the overall program. The impact of the weaknesses far outweighs the impact of any strengths.

- 3 -

Price will be evaluated in accordance with Section M.X. Corporate Management, Past Performance and Subcontracting Plan (if applicable) will be evaluated as either Acceptable or Unacceptable. As the difference in ratings between the technical factors between the offers become smaller, Price becomes more important.

M.1.3 ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARD

To be eligible for award, the Offeror must meet all the requirements of the SIR. However, the FAA reserves the right to reject any and all offers, waive any requirements, and overlook minor irregularities and discrepancies, if it would be in the best interest of the FAA to do so. Regardless of any waivers or irregularities/discrepancies allowed, the Offeror must meet the minimum requirements as addressed in Section L. The Offeror must also be determined to be financially viable and otherwise responsible.

M.1.4 AWARD ON INITIAL OFFERS

The FAA reserves the right to award a contract immediately following the conclusion of any evaluation, and may not require discussions or negotiations with the successful Offeror or any other Offeror. Therefore, it is critical that each offer be fully responsive to this SIR and its provisions. All submittals in response to a SIR should contain the Offeror's best terms from a technical, business and management, past performance, subcontracting and price standpoint. If the FAA awards on initial offers, the basis for award remains best value and, therefore, the successful Offeror may not have submitted the lowest price.

M.1.5 NUMBER OF POTENTIAL CONTRACT AWARDS

FAA may award up to ten contracts with a maximum of four (4) contracts to one Offeror (i.e., a maximum of two contracts for areas outside of contiguous United States and two contracts for areas inside of the contiguous United States).

M.2 EVALUATION PROCESS

M.2.1 During the evaluation process, the Government Evaluation Teams will evaluate each Offeror using information submitted by the Offeror, (or in the case of past performance, obtained from outside references and other points of contact) against evaluation factors contained in Section M.6.

M.2.2 During the evaluation, the Technical Evaluation Team will evaluate the Offeror's technical capabilities against evaluation factors in Sections M.3 and M.4.

M.2.3 Corporate and Management Evaluations will be conducted in accordance with Sections M.3 and M.5.

M.2.4 Past performance evaluations will be conducted in accordance with Section M.6.

- 4 -

M.2.5 Subcontracting Plan evaluations will be conducted in accordance with Section M.7.

M.2.6 A separate Price Evaluation team will also evaluate the Offeror's Price Proposals against the criteria addressed in Section M.8.

M.2.7 After each team completes their evaluations, an overall risk of each offeror for each area proposed will be determined. Risk assessment is the Government's estimates as to the Offeror's ability to perform successfully in light of the Government's evaluation of the Offeror's proposal. Risk assessment will be conducted in accordance with Section M.9.

M.2.8 The various evaluation teams will then compile the results from all evaluation factors and present their consensus findings to the Source Selection Official (SSO), who will select the offeror providing the best value to the FAA. This will be based on the technical proposal, risk characterization, price proposal, past performance, relevant experience, subcontracting plan and corporate and management as determined by the SSO.

M.3 EVALUATION FACTORS:

The following five (5) evaluation factors will be used to evaluate the Offerors and are listed in descending order of importance. If factors contain sub-factors, the sub-factors are listed in descending order of importance. Under each sub-factor, if there are sub-elements, they are also listed in descending order of importance.

M.3.1 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH - WRITTEN PROPOSAL

Tab A: Staffing Plans and Sample Shift Schedules (Sub-factor 1) Staffing Numbers (Sub-element 1) Sample Shift Schedules (Sub-element 2)

Leave Coverage (Sub-element 3)

Tab B: Technical Implementation Plans (Sub-factor 2) Facility Training Plan (Sub-element 1) Quality Control Program Plan (Sub-element 2) Contingency Plan (Sub-element 3) Phase In/Out Plan (Sub-element 4) Safety Management System Implementation Plan (Sub-element 5) Drug Testing Program Plan (Sub-element 6) Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program Plan (Sub-element 7)

M.3.2 FACTOR 2: CORPORATE/MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Overall Structure (Sub-factor 1) Management Plan (Sub-factor 2)

- 5 -

Key Personnel Resumes (Sub-Factor 3)

M.3.3 FACTOR 3PAST PERFORMANCE

M.3.4 FACTOR 4: PRICE

M.3.5 SUBCONTRACTING PLAN (IF APPLICABLE)

M.4 TECHNICAL EVALUATION

M.4.1 The technical evaluation will be reviewed and evaluated as follows:

In accordance with the Adjectival ratings in section M.1.2 above.

M.4.1.1 The factors, sub-factors, and sub-elements listed below will be used to evaluate the Offeror's technical proposal.

Technical Proposal (Factor 1)

Staffing Plans and Sample Shift Schedules (Sub-factor 1) Staffing Numbers (Sub-element 1) Sample Shift Schedules (Sub-element 2) Leave Coverage (Sub-element 3)

Technical Implementation Plans (Sub-factor 2) Facility Training Plan (Sub-element 1) Quality Control Program Plan (Sub-element 2) Contingency Plan (Sub-element 3) Phase In/Out Plan (Sub-element 4) Safety Management System Implementation Plan (Sub-element 5) Drug Testing Program Plan (Sub-element 6) Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program Plan (Sub-element 7)

M.5 CORPORATE/MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

M.5.1 The Offeror's Corporate Management will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. The following definitions apply:

Acceptable - The offeror's product or service satisfies the Government's minimum requirements as specified in the SIR. Few weaknesses exist which are likely to affect overall program schedule, product quality or performance

Unacceptable - The Offeror's product or service does not meet the minimum requirements

- 6 -as specified in the SIR. Expected program schedules, product or performance are likely to be impacted by the Offeror's proposed solution.

M.6 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

M.6.1 The Offeror's Past Performance will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis.

Offerors are to note that in conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the FAA will use both data provided by the Offeror and data obtained from other sources. The following definitions apply:

overall program schedule, product quality or performance.

Unacceptable - The Offeror's product or service does not meet the minimum requirements as specified in the SIR. Expected program schedules, product or performance are likely to be impacted by the Offeror's proposed solution.

M.6.2 Successful past performance will be evaluated based upon input received from individuals and organizations familiar with the work ethic, and standards of the Offeror, as demonstrated through previous or ongoing contracts of a similar nature, size, scope and complexity. Offerors will be assessed as to whether their company has compiled a record of quality work, timeliness of performance, satisfied customers, and demonstrated price and schedule control procedures.

M.6.3 Each Offeror will be evaluated on its performance under existing and prior contracts of similar services and those contracts identified in the supplemental list provided by the Offeror in accordance with Section L. 21.1.2. Performance information may be used for both responsibility determinations and as an evaluation factor against which Offerors’ relative rankings will be compared to assure best value to the FAA. A performance Survey Form, Attachment XX, prepared by the FAA, will be used to collect this information. References other than those identified by the Offeror may be contacted by the FAA with the information received and used in the evaluation of the Offeror’s past performance.

M.6.4 The Government reserves the right to contact prior clients of the Offeror and to use the results in this evaluation.

M.7 SUBCONTRACTING PLAN EVALUATION

M.7.1 The FAA will evaluate the Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting plan as either Acceptable or Unacceptable. The following definitions apply:

overall program schedule, product quality or performance

Unacceptable - The Offeror's product or service does not meet the minimum

- 7 -requirements as specified in the SIR. Expected program schedules, product or performance are likely to be impacted by the Offeror's proposed solution.

M.7.2 The FAA will evaluate whether the Offeror’s Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting Plan fully addresses each of the elements listed in FAA AMS Clause 3.6.1-4 as well as the goals set forth in Section L.22.2 Tab D. The Offeror must make every attempt, in good faith, to attain the goals listed in Section L.22.2 Tab D.

M.7.3 The FAA will evaluate whether the Offeror’s Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting plan demonstrates that the subcontracting goals apply over the full life of the Contract, including the base period and each exercised option period, if applicable.

M.7.4 The following are FAA goals to be used in evaluating the offeror’s decision to subcontract. At least five (5) percent or more of the planned subcontracting dollar value shall be allocated to small business including the following: small business concerns, small disadvantage business concerns, women-owned small business concerns and service-disabled veteran owned small business concerns. These goals will be utilized for determining whether the offeror’s subcontracting plan is acceptable or unacceptable;

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

Offerors that intend to do 100% of the work are not required to submit a subcontracting plan. For offerors not intending to do 100% of the work, failure to submit an acceptable subcontracting plan and/or correct deficiencies within the time specified by the Contracting Officer may make the offeror ineligible for contract award.

M.8 PRICE EVALUATION

The Price Volume must be a separate proposal volume and properly identified. Data submitted in the proposal should be information only essential to document or support the price position. No pricing information shall be included in any other volume. If price information is included elsewhere in the proposal documentation it will not be evaluated. The Offeror’s proposal must adhere to the pricing structure established in Section B of the SIR.

Offerors are responsible for submitting sufficient information to enable the FAA to fully evaluate its Price proposal. The Offeror must ensure there is consistency between the Technical and Price Volumes. The Offeror must ensure that the CLIN prices and the total proposed price are reasonable, realistic, and commensurate with the work required by the SIR and the technical and program management approaches identified in the Volume X of the proposal. The Offeror must explain any inconsistency between proposed performance and price, as well as any appearance of unbalanced pricing, in the proposal.

The FAA will evaluate the proposals for reasonableness, completeness, traceability, consistency, and balance. Price Proposals will not be scored or rated.

- 8 -

In evaluating offers, the FAA will use a total evaluated price (TEP), which includes the base ordering period and all subsequent ordering periods. The TEP will be the sum of the proposed price for FFP CLINs for the Base Year and all Option Periods.

Evaluation of the options does not require the Government to exercise those options.

The FAA will evaluate proposals for reasonableness in accordance with AMS Policy Section

3.2.3.2 and AMS Policy and Procurement Guidance Section T3.2.3. A 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 reserves the right to perform price realism in accordance with AMS T.3.2.3(A)(1)(i)(3). The FAA reserves the right to conduct cost analysis if necessary to ensure a fair and reasonable price and to support the price realism analysis. This may require the FAA to request additional information from the Offerors.

The FAA will review each proposal to determine whether the proposal includes all required pricing information, pricing details align with summary pricing tables, and prices are consistent with described pricing methodology. Completeness shall be determined based on the information requested in Section L. The FAA at its sole discretion might require additional information or reject proposals lacking completeness, consistency or traceability.

The FAA reserves the right to evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for balance in accordance with AMS T.3.2.3(A)(1)(j). Unbalanced pricing exists where, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more labor categories is significantly understated and the price of one or more labor categories is significantly overstated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques; or the offer is so grossly unbalanced that its acceptance would be equivalent to allowing an advanced payment (front loaded). Offerors are cautioned that a proposal may be rejected if unbalanced pricing exists and the FAA determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk.

M. 9 RESPONSIBILITY

An offeror must be determined responsible to be eligible for award. To be determined responsible, the Offeror must satisfy the standards listed in AMS Section 3.2.2.2. The adequacy of the Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting Plan (SBSDB) are factors in the Contracting Officer’s determination of the prospective Contractor responsibility.

The Government reserves the right to conduct a Pre-Award Survey at its discretion of the offeror or any subcontractor. To be eligible for award, the contractor must be technically and financially capable of performing the work.

M.10 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS, AMS 3.2.4-31 (APRIL 1996)

- 9 -

Except when it is determined not to be in the Government's best interests, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(End of provision)

End Section M