E-IDS Draft SIR Section M.pdf

693KA7-18-R-00003

08/03/2018 Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

Draft 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M. 1 AMS 3.1-1 CLAUSES AND PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

(JULY 2011)

M. 2 Determination of Responsibility

M. 3 Basis for Award

M.3.1 Source Selection Process

M.3.2 Basis for Exclusion from Award Consideration

M.3.3 Assessment of Risk

M.3.4 Evaluation Factors and Order of Importance

M.3.4.1 Volume I – Technical

M. 4 Volume I: Technical Evaluation Process

M.4.1 Part A: Technical Factors

M.4.1.1 Factor A.1: Approach

M.4.1.2 Factor A.2: Data Rights

M.4.1.3 Factor A.3: Systems Engineering

M.4.1.4 Factor A.4: System Development

M.4.1.5 Factor A.5: Test and Evaluation

M.4.1.6 Factor A.6: Implementation and Transition

M.4.1.7 Factor A.7: Operations, Maintenance, and Logistics

M.4.1.8 Factor A.8: Program Management

M.4.1.9 Factor A.9: Experience

M.4.2 Part B: Operational Capability Demonstration Factors

M.4.2.1 Factor B.1: Standard User Computer Human Interface (CHI) Customization10

M.4.2.2 Factor B.2: System Management and Control

M.4.2.3 Factor B.3: Performance and Functionality During Degraded Operations and

Restoral 11

M.4.2.4 Factor B.4: Data Management

M.4.2.5 Factor B.5: System Interfaces and Protocols

M.4.3 Technical Evaluation Ratings

08/03/2018 Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

Draft 2

M. 5 Volume II Cost/Price Evaluation Process

M.5.1 Cost/Price Evaluation Factors

M.5.1.1 Incentive Fee Structures

M.5.1.2 Reasonableness

M.5.1.3 Cost Realism (Applicable to Cost Type CLINs Only)

M.5.1.4 Balance

M.5.1.5 Completeness/Consistency/Traceability

M.5.1.6 Reserved

M. 6 Volume III: Past Performance Evaluation Process

M.6.1 Past Performance Evaluation Criteria

M.6.2 Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

M. 7 Definitions

08/03/2018 Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

Draft 3

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.

Clause Title

3.2.4-31 Evaluation of Options (April 1996)

3.3.1-30 Progress Payments Not Included (November 1997)

3.6.1-10 Evaluation of Contractor Participation in the FAA Mentor Protégé (Jan 1999)

M. 2 Determination of Responsibility

In accordance with Acquisition Management Policy 3.2.2.2, prior to award of any contract, the

Contracting Officer will make a determination of responsibility. As a minimum, to be determined responsible, a prospective Offeror must:

• Have adequate financial resources to perform the contract and the ability to obtain resources;

• Be able to comply with the required or proposed delivery or performance schedule, taking into consideration all other business commitments;

• Have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics;

• Have a satisfactory performance history;

• Have the necessary organization, experience, accounting and operational controls that may include, but are not limited to: production control, property control systems, quality assurance programs, appropriate safety programs; and is qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations; and

• Reserved

08/03/2018 Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

Draft 4

M. 3 Basis for Award

This acquisition is being conducted in accordance with the FAA Acquisition Management

System (AMS). Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is judged to represent the best value to the FAA. The best value determination will be based on the evaluation of each

Offeror’s proposal in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section M. Best value describes the solution that is the most advantageous to the FAA based on the evaluation of technical quality, past performance, cost or price, and the other criteria set forth in Section M. It does not require that an award be made to either the Offeror submitting the highest rated technical solution or to the Offeror submitting the lowest cost/price, i.e., the cost/price proposal with the lowest total evaluated cost may not be the judged to represent the best value to the FAA. The FAA will strive for maximum objectivity. However, the source selection process is by nature subjective and professional judgment will be applied throughout the entire process.

The FAA intends to select one Offeror for contract award. The FAA reserves the right to not award a contract for any reason.

Offerors are advised that the FAA reserves the right to make an award based on initial proposals received, without communications (including but not limited to clarification requests and negotiations). The FAA may communicate with Offerors orally or in writing during the evaluation. The Government reserves the right to conduct communications with one, some, or all competing Offerros. Communications with one or more Offerors do not necessitate communications with other Offerors. Offerors must not assume that they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss, or revise their proposal. Therefore, it is critical that each proposal be fully responsive to the solicitation and its provisions. Offerors are instructed to submit proposals with their most favorable cost and non-cost terms.

The SSO has authority to waive a requirement at any time after release of the SIR, without notifying other Offerors if the waiver does not affect a significant requirement that changes the essential character or conditions of the procurement.

M.3.1 Source Selection Process

Each volume of the Offeror’s proposal will first be reviewed to determine whether it follows the requirements of Section L and includes all required information. Omission of information may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from further consideration.

To determine best value, the FAA will then:

a) Evaluate the Technical Volume for each Offeror against the criteria stated in Sections

M.4.1 and M.4.2.

08/03/2018 Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

Draft 5

b) Evaluate the Cost/Price proposal of each Offeror against the criteria stated in Section M.

5.

c) Evaluate the Past Performance proposal of each Offeror against the criteria stated in

Section M. 6.

d) Reserved

e) Perform a tradeoff analysis of any differentiating findings between the Technical, Past

Performance, and Cost/Price proposal evaluations (including Risks), to arrive at an informed, fair, and reasoned best value decision.

M.3.2 Basis for Exclusion from Award Consideration

The Government reserves the right to eliminate Offerors’ proposals from consideration for award prior to a final award decision. An Offeror may be excluded from award consideration if it is deemed to have submitted a non-responsive or incomplete proposal

Any Offeror with a rating of “unsatisfactory”, as defined in Table 1, in any factor of the

Technical volume may be excluded from further consideration.

Any Offeror with a rating of “no confidence”, as defined in Table 2, for the Past Performance volume may be excluded from further consideration.

Reserved

An omission or a vague response to the requirements of this solicitation may be deemed an incomplete proposal, as it relates to the requirements of the solicitation and consequently may cause the Offeror to be deemed ineligible for award.

Failure by an Offeror to sufficiently identify and address risks may lead the FAA to conclude that the Offeror has an inadequate understanding of the requirements and it may be grounds for elimination from the competition.

Proposals with unbalanced prices may be rejected.

Unrealistically low or unreasonably high proposed prices or inconsistencies between the cost and non-cost volumes may be grounds for eliminating an Offeror from competition on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the complexity and risks of the contract requirements or has made an unrealistic or unreasonable proposal.

If at any point 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.

08/03/2018 Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

Draft 6

The Contracting Officer may notify in writing any Offeror eliminated from further consideration either at the time of elimination or at the time of award.

M.3.3 Assessment of Risk

Risks identified within any aspect an Offeror’s proposal will be analyzed as to their potential impacts. This includes risks resulting from inconsistencies and discrepancies among various aspects of an Offeror’s proposal and risks that pertain to unsubstantiated representations made in any aspect of an Offeror’s proposal. Failure to address any capability included in the SIR can be considered a weakness, a risk, or both. The FAA will not assign a separate adjectival risk rating overall or for any of the volumes. The FAA will include its assessment of risk in the evaluation of the relevant portion of the proposal.

Risks and risk mitigation strategies identified in an Offeror’s proposal will be considered when evaluating proposed approaches. A particular Offeror’s ability to demonstrate an understanding of the risks, or not, may be noted among strengths or weaknesses.

M.3.4 Evaluation Factors and Order of Importance

Each proposal volume will be evaluated in accordance with the factors and hierarchy identified below. The Offeror’s responses will be rated based on the evaluation criteria.

For the best value determination, Volume I (Technical) is more important than Volume III (Past

Performance). The non-price volumes (I and III) collectively are more important than Volume II

(Price). As the differences among Offerors in the non-price evaluation decrease, importance of the Volume II evaluation increases. Reserved

M.3.4.1 Volume I – Technical

Part A is more important than Part B

Part A – Technical (Written Proposal)

Factor A.1: Approach

Factor A.2: Data Rights

Factor A.3: Systems Engineering

Factor A.4: System Development

Factor A.5: Test and Evaluation

Factor A.6: Implementation and Transition

Factor A.7: Operations, Maintenance and Logistics

Factor A.8: Program Management

Factor A.9: Past Experience

08/03/2018 Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

Draft 7

Factor A.1 is more important than Factor A.2. Factors A.3 through A.9 are of equal importance with factor A.2.

Part B – Operational Capability Demonstration

Factor B.1: User Customization

Factor B.2: System Management and Control

Factor B.3: Performance During Degraded Operations

Factor B.4: Data Management

Factor B.5: Interface Flexibility

Factor B.1 is more important than factor B.2.

Factor B.2 is more important than factor B.3.

Factor B.3 is more important than factor B.4.

Factor B.4 is more important than factor B.5.

08/03/2018 Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

Draft 8

M. 4 Volume I: Technical Evaluation Process

The FAA will evaluate the degree to which each proposal is viable, substantiated, and realistic.

The FAA will:

a) Review, analyze, and consider all information received in each proposal, which will include the written proposal content and any information received from the Operational

Capability Demonstration and written communication items, if issued.

b) Identify the strengths, weaknesses, and risks for each element within each factor in each proposal.

c) Rate each factor according to the rating levels defined in Table 1 by assessing strengths, weaknesses, and risks noted in the elements within the factor using Table 1.

d) Rate the Technical volume according to the rating levels defined in Table 1 based on the results of the factors and taking into consideration the order of importance defined in

Section M.3.4.1.

When determining a rating the FAA will review all strengths, weaknesses, and risks to determine the ratings. Ratings will not be determined based on the quantity of strengths, weaknesses, or risks. The Technical Volume includes both the material associated with the written Technical volume as well as the material associated with the Operational Capability Demonstration.

M.4.1 Part A: Technical Factors

M.4.1.1 Factor A.1: Approach

The FAA will evaluate:

a) The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed technical approach addresses and demonstrates understanding of E-IDS.

b) The degree to which the offeror’s technical proposal clearly identifies their solution.

c) The degree to which the architecture, design and maturity of their Demonstration

Capability, including the flow of information, the software used, the hardware used, the firmware used, the functions, and the interfaces provided by the demonstrated capability are applicable to their proposed E-IDS solution.

d) The degree to which the Offeror’s approach will assist the E-IDS in achieving its program objectives identified in the Strategic Plan, Attachment J.2.

M.4.1.2 Factor A.2: Data Rights

The FAA will evaluate:

a) the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed approach for Data Rights enables the

Government to use, modify, release or disclose the technical data, software, or documentation.

M.4.1.3 Factor A.3: Systems Engineering

The FAA will evaluate:

a) The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed systems engineering approach will facilitate successful development and management of E-IDS requirements.

08/03/2018 Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

Draft 9

b) The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed systems engineering approach will successfully integrate with the FAA’s defined processes and how well this approach will lead to successful and timely development, implementation and operation of the E-IDS system.

M.4.1.4 Factor A.4: System Development

The FAA will evaluate:

a) The degree to which the Offeror has identified and defined their system development methodology.

b) The degree to which the Offeror has provided a well-defined allocation of E-IDS functionality to the components of their solution to hardware, COTS software, and custom software as well as the associated rationale for this allocation and how this allocation will facilitate an efficient development.

c) The degree to which the Offeror's approach to developing their solution using IESP in all environments, e.g. development, test, and operations, will facilitate successful development and implementation of their E-IDS solution.

M.4.1.5 Factor A.5: Test and Evaluation

The FAA will evaluate:

a) The degree to which the Offeror's test and evaluation approach aligns with existing FAA testing processes and demonstrates that their test and evaluation program will satisfy all

FAA Test and Evaluation process requirements.

b) The degree to which the test processes and capabilities used in the Offeror's test and evaluation approach facilitate a successful test program.

c) The degree to which the Offeror's approach for testing will likely result in

i. Successful integration into the IESP environment, and

ii. Successful integration of all connected systems and interfaces.

M.4.1.6 Factor A.6: Implementation and Transition

The FAA will evaluate:

a) The degree to which the Offeror’s approach addresses the implementation processes and constraints of staffed NAS operational facilities.

b) The degree to which the Offeror can provide flexibility speed up or slow down the rate of implementation based upon funding or tactical considerations, while maintaining institutional knowledge and quality of work across the sites and across the phases of implementation.

c) The degree to which the Offeror can deploy the system successfully the first time and minimize repeat visits to sites.

d) The degree to which the Offeror’s implementation approach supports parallel operations with the legacy systems through legacy system decommissioning.

M.4.1.7 Factor A.7: Operations, Maintenance, and Logistics

The FAA will evaluate:

08/03/2018 Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

Draft 10

a) The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed solution facilitates the transfer of software to new hardware platforms with minimal to no change. This includes software used in

National Data Centers, Facility Servers, and User Position Equipment.

b) The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed approach for software releases aligns with

NAS technical operations orders and procedures and leads to an efficient use of resources and provides the E-IDS program with the flexibility necessary to address change.

c) The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed approach facilitates management of multiple operational software baselines through the system lifecycle within the NAS

d) The degree to which the Offeror’s E-IDS proposed solution will facilitate integration with the FAA enterprise and local monitoring and control.

e) The degree to which the Offeror’s process for managing and tracking the hardware and software components of the system facilitates effective logistics management and minimizes end-of-life risks.

M.4.1.8 Factor A.8: Program Management

The FAA will evaluate:

a) The degree to which the Program Manager's reporting chain within the organizational structure ensures the appropriate access to upper management. The degree to which the authority of the program manager enables sufficient priority access to resources.

b) The degree to which the Offeror's proposed roles of the prime contractor and all team members are well-defined in terms of how the team will support the full range of effort defined in the Statement of Work and how each team member will support specific efforts or ranges of effort.

c) The degree to which the Offeror's management approach facilitates an open dialogue with the FAA and ensures the FAA visibility into and awareness of program status and issues. The degree to which the Offeror's proposed issue resolution escalation process provides a timely and effective approach to resolving issues.

d) The degree to which the inter-company relationships are well-defined and the team is structured to support the execution of the program in an effective and efficient manner.

M.4.1.9 Factor A.9: Experience

The FAA will evaluate:

a) The degree to which all team members – prime contractor and subcontractors - have experience in their assigned roles to support the solution.

b) The degree to which the Offeror's proposed key personnel possess the appropriate qualifications and experience on relevant programs to effectively perform their proposed roles on the program.

c) The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates recent and relevant experience working together for team members and staff and why that is relevant to E-IDS.

M.4.2 Part B: Operational Capability Demonstration Factors

M.4.2.1 Factor B.1: Standard User Computer Human Interface (CHI) Customization

The FAA will evaluate:

08/03/2018 Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

Draft 11

a) The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a system with data administration capability that provides straight-forward Computer Human Interface (CHI) customization by a data administrator for different operational positions.

b) The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a capability which provides ease of use for the data administrator.

c) The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates how the new customization is transitioned into operational use.

M.4.2.2 Factor B.2: System Management and Control

The FAA will evaluate:

a) The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a system that provides complete situational awareness of the state of the system to include status and performance of system components locally and at the enterprise level. This includes system maintainers, system users, and system administrators.

b) The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates functionality that assists maintainers in effective fault isolation and restoration of the capability

M.4.2.3 Factor B.3: Performance and Functionality During Degraded Operations and

Restoral

The FAA will evaluate:

a) The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a system that provides functionality during different failure modes of the system, indicates the failed states to the user, and indicates when full operational capability has been restored.

b) The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates how quickly and efficiently the system reconstitutes the data during restoral.

M.4.2.4 Factor B.4: Data Management

The FAA will evaluate:

a) The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a system that provides ease of inputting, validating, correlating, retaining and tracking system data.

b) The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a system that easily incorporates data from legacy systems.

c) The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a system that provides scalability to accommodate data and system growth.

M.4.2.5 Factor B.5: System Interfaces and Protocols

The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a system that support different interface types and protocols.

08/03/2018 Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

Draft 12

M.4.3 Technical Evaluation Ratings

Table 1: Technical Rating Definitions

Rating Definition

Excellent The Offeror’s response comprehensively addresses the requirements. The combined impact of the strengths far outweighs the combined impact of any weaknesses and risks.

Good The Offeror’s response adequately addresses the requirements. The combined impact of the strengths outweighs the combined impact of any weaknesses and risks.

Satisfactory The Offeror’s response adequately addresses the requirements. The combined impact of any strengths is approximately equal to the combined impact of any weaknesses and risks.

Marginal The Offeror’s response does not adequately address the requirements. The combined impact of the weaknesses and risks outweighs the combined impact of any strengths.

Unsatisfactory The Offeror’s response does not adequately address the requirements. The combined impact of the weaknesses and risks far outweighs the combined impact of any strengths.

Note: If a proposal is evaluated as meeting part of one rating description and part of another, the

FAA will determine which rating is appropriate. For example, if the Offeror’s response comprehensively addresses the requirements and the combined impact of the strengths outweighs

(but does not far outweigh) the combined impact of any weaknesses and risks, the FAA will determine whether to assign and Excellent or Good rating.

08/03/2018 Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

Draft 13

M. 5 Volume II Cost/Price Evaluation Process

The FAA will verify that prices have been submitted for all requested Contract Line Item

Numbers (CLINs). An FAA Evaluation Copy of the Cost Model and the validation version of the

Cost Model will be used by the FAA to verify each Offeror’s computation of costs for the prices entered within their submitted Cost Model. The FAA will verify the total evaluated cost submitted by the Offeror by copying the prices submitted within the Offeror’s Cost Model to the validation version in order to ensure consistency of evaluation.

The FAA will evaluate proposed pricing of all CLINs, to include a separate evaluation of proposed hourly rates by labor category, for reasonableness, balance, completeness, consistency, and traceability. Cost type CLINs will also be evaluated for cost realism and the risk associated with proposed incentive fee structures. For each proposal, the government will calculate Total Evaluated Price (TEP) that will be the sum of the Offeror proposed values within the cost model and FAA provided ceilings (contained within the cost model) unless found unrealistic by FAA (cost type CLINs only) and replaced with FAA determined probable costs and associated fees. The TEP will be computed for the complete scope of the program effort across the entire contract period of performance (base period and all options totaling 15 years) including all possible incentive fees that are proposed (or revised if applicable per realism analysis). With respect to the T&M CLINs, for evaluation purposes only, and as stated in Section

L, the FAA has directed Offerors to propose hourly rates for each year of the program for potential use in T&M Task Orders issued under IDIQ CLINs. FAA will utilize a uniform total estimated quantity of hours per functional area for the purposes of factoring T&M CLINs into the TEP. This does not represent a commitment by the FAA to purchase this amount of service

(or mix of labor) under the T&M IDIQ CLINs planned for inclusion in the anticipated contract.

To assist in determining the reasonableness and realism of cost or price, evaluation of the

Offeror’s proposals may include verification of the rates proposed by the prime and subcontractors. This requires a determination that both direct (labor) and indirect (overhead and

G&A) rates and any special pricing factors are reasonable, allocable, and consistent with allowable accounting/estimating policies. The Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) may be called upon to assist in making this determination.

M.5.1 Cost/Price Evaluation Factors

M.5.1.1 Incentive Fee Structures

For each incentive fee CLIN, the FAA will review the proposed Incentive Fee structure to assess the degree to which it will introduce risk or risk reduction for the FAA. The cost incentive fee may be included in the TEP at other than the proposed amount if the costs associated with it are found to be unrealistic.

M.5.1.2 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 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

08/03/2018 Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

Draft 14 cost reasonableness based on competition, review of cost elements (for cost type CLINs only), by comparing the TEC of each proposal to the FAA Independent Government Cost Estimate

(IGCE) and by any other cost/price analysis method deemed appropriate by the FAA.

M.5.1.3 Cost Realism (Applicable to Cost Type CLINs Only)

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.

If the FAA finds a proposed cost/price for a cost type CLIN to be unrealistically low, the FAA will determine if this requires the development of a probable cost estimate to use for evaluation purposes in place of the Offeror’s proposed cost. If it is determined to be necessary, FAA may create a probable cost estimate, recalculate the associated fees, and use it in place of the proposed cost/price as the evaluated cost and price.

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 cost/price proposal. The burden of proof for credibility rests with the Offeror.

M.5.1.4 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 offer 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.5.1.5 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.5.1.6 Reserved

08/03/2018 Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

Draft 15

M. 6 Volume III: Past Performance Evaluation Process

Each Offeror’s past performance will be assessed using the Offeror-provided information and information received in the response to the Past Performance Survey (Attachment L-2). The

FAA will consider the areas identified in Section M. 6 and use the ratings as identified in Table

2, Past Performance Rating Descriptions, to rate the Past Performance volume.

The Government assessment may be augmented by information obtained through contact with prior clients of the offeror, including references other than those identified by the offeror, and the results used in the evaluation.

While the FAA may elect to consider information obtained from other sources, the FAA is under no obligation to do so. Past performance evaluations will be conducted on information determined to be relevant and recent. Past performance examples that do not meet recency and relevancy requirements may be considered, but will not receive full credit. Based on the definitions within Table 3 the FAA will determine relevancy and recency of Offeror provided information as well as information obtained from other sources. An Offeror’s lack of past performance on similar types of contracts may result in an Offeror receiving a lower rating. The

FAA is not bound by the Offeror’s view of relevancy or recency.

Offerors will be assessed to see whether they have a proven track record of quality work, timely performance, satisfied customers, effective program management, cost control, and efficient contract administration. This assessment will be based on the past performance information submitted in accordance with Section L.

The Government will review and assess the customer satisfaction questionnaires for consistency with information provided by the offeror and for independent assessment of the offeror’s past experience as related to the factors in section M.

In the absence of relevant past performance as defined above, the offeror’s past performance may be assessed based upon their three most recent past performance credentials closest to the E-

IDS Program requirements as defined in this SIR. These examples may be submitted by the

Offeror or identified by the FAA.

Past Performance will be rated by assessing strengths, weaknesses, and risks noted for each of the past performance examples and using the criteria stated in Table 2.

M.6.1 Past Performance Evaluation Criteria

The following areas will be considered in the evaluation:

08/03/2018 Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

Draft 16

Quality of Product or Service: The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates its past performance in delivering quality products or services in the areas of compliance with contract requirements, accuracy of reports and overall technical excellence.

Timeliness of Performance: The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates its past performance for timeliness of performance in the areas of meeting event milestones, meeting delivery schedules, fulfilling contract requirements and meeting completion dates.

Cost Control: The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates its past performance for cost control in the areas of forecasting target costs, target costs relationships to actual costs, billing, and cost efficiency.

Customer Satisfaction: The FAA will review and assess the customer satisfaction questionnaires for consistency with information provided by the Offeror. The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates its past performance for customer satisfaction by assessing the overall satisfaction of end users with the contractor’s service.

An Offeror’s failure to provide sufficient detail on past performance with contracts of similar size, scope and requirements may result in an Offeror receiving a lower rating.

M.6.2 Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Table 2: Past Performance Rating Definitions

Rating Definition

High Confidence The past performance response gives the FAA a high degree of confidence that the requirements will be met in timely and cost effective manner. The impact of identified strengths greatly outweighs the impact of any weaknesses and/or risks.

Confidence The past performance response gives the FAA a strong degree of confidence that requirements can be met in a timely and cost effective manner. The impact of identified strengths outweighs the impact of any identified weaknesses and/or risks.

Low Confidence The past performance response gives the FAA limited confidence that the requirements may be met in a timely and cost effective manner.

The impact of any strengths is equivalent to or somewhat less than the impact of any weaknesses and/or risks

No Confidence The past performance does not fully address the requirements. The response fails to adequately identify the competency or capability to meet the requirements in a timely manner. The impact of weaknesses and/or risks greatly outweighs the impact of any strengths.

08/03/2018 Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

Draft 17

M. 7 Definitions

Table 3: Definition of Terms

Term Definition

Strength An aspect of a proposal that would positively impact performance of the resulting contract, exceed the minimum requirements, or otherwise benefit the Government.

Weakness An aspect of a proposal that would negatively impact performance of the resulting contract, fail to meet the minimum requirements, or otherwise harm the Government.

Risk An aspect a proposal that presents an uncertainty as to the ability of the Offeror to successfully perform the required effort or the proposed approach.

Relevant Present/Past programs that involved essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexity that will be required to provide the services required for Enterprise Information Display

System and are currently ongoing or were recently completed.

Recent Performance within five years of the date of proposal submission