4. Section M AO-X ATC Simulator Evaluation Factors 1Nov2021.pdf

Section M

Evaluation Criteria for the

AO-X Air Traffic Control (ATC) Tower Simulator

1 November 2021

Solicitation Number: FA8730-22-R-0012

Prepared for

AFLCMC/HBAG

Prepared by

AFLCMC/HBAG

75 Vandenberg Drive, Building 1630

Hanscom AFB MA 01731

DISTRIBUTION C: Distribution authorized to U.S. Government Agencies and their contractors (Administrative or Operational Use) (2 February 2018) Other requests for this document shall be referred to AFMC/AFLCMC/HBAG, Future Systems Section, 75 Vandenberg Drive, Building 1630, Hanscom

AFB, MA 01731

DESTRUCTION NOTICE: Destroy by any method that will prevent disclosure of contents or reconstruction of the document.

Revision History

Revision Number (Rev01, Rev02, etc.)

Date Description Sections Affected/Author

Original 1 Nov 2021

Baseline Publication

Section M Evaluation Criteria for AO-X Air Traffic Control (ATC) Tower Simulator

Contents AO-X Air Traffic Control (ATC) Tower Simulator

M1 Source Selection

M1.a. Basis for Contract Award

M1.b. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

M1.c. Competitive Advantage from Use of GFP

M1.d. Discussions

M1.e. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

M2 Evaluation Factors

M2.a. Evaluation Factors

M2.b. Evaluation Methodology

M2.c. Factor I – Technical Capability

M2.c.1 General System Performance

M2.c.2 Size

M2.c.3 Visual Display

M2.c.4 Visual Database

M2.c.5 Tower Radar Display

M2.c.6 Airfield Automation System (AFAS)

M2.c.7 Voice Recognition/Synthesis

M2.c.8 Scenario Transportability

M2.c.9 Environmental Conditions

M3 Factor II – Price

M3.a Evaluation Criteria

M3.a.1 Completeness

M3.a.2 Reasonableness

M3.a.3 Balance

M3.a.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

M1 Source Selection

M1.a. Basis for Contract Award This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-2, Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Source Selection Process, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, 01 April 2016 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3, 26 July 2021. These regulations are available electronically at the Acquisition.Gov website (https://www.acquisition.gov/). The Government will select the proposal with the lowest evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include delivery timelines, all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

M1.b. Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award one contract for the AO-X Air Traffic Control (ATC) Tower Simulator program. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals, prices submitted, and the availability of funds.

M1.c. Competitive Advantage from Use of GFP Use of Government property not already identified as part of this RFP is not authorized. The Government does not anticipate making GFP available for this effort.

M1.d. Discussions It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions; therefore, it is imperative that offerors submit their best terms initially. However, if during the evaluation period it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and/or the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) (if requested) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

M1.e. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

M2 Evaluation Factors

M2.a. Evaluation Factors The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors.

Factor 1: Technical Capability

System Performance

Size

Visual Display

Visual Database

Tower Radar Display

Airfield Automation System (AFS)

Voice Recognition/Synthesis

Scenario Transportability

Environmental Conditions (Configuration/Interfaces)

Factor 2: Price

M2.b. Evaluation Methodology With the LPTA Source Selection Process, technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability.

ENs may be submitted during the evaluation period if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. However, each offeror’s initial proposal should include best terms as there may not be an opportunity to revise proposals and the Government may elect not to request additional information from the offeror(s) prior to making its final determination.

If the Offeror’s proposal is determined to be outside the competitive range, or otherwise eliminated from the competition at any point of the evaluation period, notification shall be submitted to unsuccessful offeror(s).

M2.c. Factor I – Technical Capability The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below (Table M1) for each section. All measures of merit listed below in M2 must be rated as acceptable in order to receive an acceptable rating for the Technical Capability Factor.

In order to receive an acceptable rating, the proposal must clearly and affirmatively demonstrate that the proposed solution fulfills the Measure of Merit for that evaluation area. In the event that a proposal is ambiguous or fails to clearly and affirmatively demonstrate its compliance with requirements, the Government will assume the requirement is not met, and will assign an unacceptable rating. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions.

Table M1 Technically Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly and affirmatively demonstrates meeting the requirements of the solicitation

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly and affirmatively demonstrate meeting the requirements of the solicitation.

The proposals shall be evaluated on the following technical areas:

M2.c.1 General System Performance This criteria evaluates the general system performance of the offeror’s proposed solution.

Measure of Merit:

This criteria is met when the offeror’s proposed solution demonstrably meets all of the requirements in SOW Section 2.1.

M2.c.2 Size

This criteria evaluates the physical size of the offeror’s proposed solution.

This criteria is met when the offeror’s proposed solution demonstrably fits within an 8 ft x 5 ft x 6 ft (length x width x height) footprint IAW SOW Section 2.2.

M2.c.3 Visual Display This criteria evaluates the visual display of the offeror’s proposed solution.

Measure of Merit This criteria is met when the offeror’s proposed solution demonstrably has a 180-degree simulated field of view using desktop monitors IAW SOW Section 2.3.

M2.c.4 Visual Database This criteria evaluates the visual database of the offeror’s proposed solution.

Measure of Merit This criteria is met when the offeror’s proposed solution satisfies all elements

2.4.1 through 2.4.13 of SOW Section 2.4.

M2.c.5 Tower Radar Display This criteria evaluates the tower radar display of the offeror’s proposed solution.

This criteria is met when the offeror’s proposed solution satisfies all elements of SOW Section 2.5.

M2.c.6 Airfield Automation System (AFAS) This criteria evaluates the offeror’s proposed solution’s ability to emulate the USAF’s airfield automation system (AFAS).

This criteria is met when the offeror’s proposed solution emulates the USAF’s

AFAS.

M2.c.7 Voice Recognition/Synthesis This criteria evaluates the voice recognition and voice synthesis of the offeror’s proposed solution.

This criteria is met when the offeror’s proposed solution meets all of the voice recognition criteria IAW SOW Section 2.7.1 and voice synthesis criteria IAW SOW Section 2.7.2.

M2.c.8 Scenario Transportability This criteria evaluates the ability for the offeror’s proposed solution to receive, edit, save, and send a scenario package.

This criteria is met when the offeror’s proposed solution (1) is demonstrably capable of receiving a scenario package already in use in existing USAF ATC tower simulators, to include all data and files necessary to conduct the scenario;

and (2) any changes made to that scenario are demonstrably exportable to an existing USAF ATC tower simulator.

M2.c.9 Environmental Conditions This criteria evaluates the offeror’s proposed solution’s ability to be used in the “real world” AO-X physical environment.

Measure of Merit This criteria is met when the offeror’s proposed solution meets the configuration constraints of SOW Section 2.9.1 and the interfaces constraints of SOW Section

2.9.2.

M3 Factor II – Price

M3.a Evaluation Criteria The pricing criteria used for evaluation are: (1) Completeness, (2) Price reasonableness, (3) Balance and (4) TEP. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable, or unbalanced will not be considered for award.

M3.a.1 Completeness The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with the RFP, notably Section L. Incomplete price submissions will not be evaluated, and the proposal will be eliminated from the competition.

M3.a.2 Reasonableness The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 – Proposal Analysis Techniques. Based on the level of interest for this requirement, it is anticipated that adequate price competition will satisfy the criteria for price reasonableness. The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it will represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market.

M3.a.3 Balance Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced unit Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR Part 15.404-1. Per FAR 15.404-1(g)(3), if the Government determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government, the proposal will be eliminated from the competition.

M3.a.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

A TEP will be calculated and used to rank all technically acceptable offers. The TEP will be the summation of all firm-fixed priced CLINs. The calculation method of each CLIN total is discussed below. The Government will use the TEP for evaluation purposes only; the TEP is not representative of the actual contract value.

CLIN 0001 ATC Tower Simulator (FFP) The Government will include the offeror’s proposed price for this CLIN 0001 in the TEP. This price is inclusive of the entire system and shall include shipping costs.