MSBRS SIR Section M - Amendment 0001.docx

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contract Number: XXXX Section M: Evaluation Factors for Award

M-i

CLAUSES AND PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (AMS 3.1-1)

This Screening Information Request (SIR) or solicitation, 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 (CO) will make the full text available or Offerors and contractors may also obtain the full text via the Internet at: http://conwrite.faa.gov. On this webpage, select “Download All”, then “Download.”

BASIS FOR AWARD

Award Selection The Offeror whose offer conforms to the requirements of the solicitation and provides the best value to the Federal Aviation Administration (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 the Technical, Past Performance, Management, and Price factors specified in the SIR. The best value approach provides the opportunity for technical and cost/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 total evaluated realistic and reasonable price. Therefore, the lowest total evaluated realistic and reasonable price/cost or the highest rated Offeror may not necessarily provide the best value to the FAA. The FAA reserves the right to not make an award if such action is in its best interest.

The FAA intends to select one Offeror for contract award.

Eligibility for Consideration The FAA will perform an initial screening to identify proposals that will continue through the evaluation in accordance with the evaluation criteria in this document. To be considered for this procurement, the Offeror must provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that its proposed monopulse Mode S system is currently operational and in use by an Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) to provide civilian Air Traffic services and separation of aircraft, or is derived from that operational production baseline in accordance with the requirements in Section L.7. The FAA will validate with the ANSP the information provided by the Offeror. If the FAA determines that an Offeror fails to demonstrate these requirements (Volume V), their proposal will not be evaluated and the Offeror will not be eligible for further consideration for award.

EVALUATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR CONSIDERATION

The FAA’s initial evaluation of proposals will consist of determining a Pass/Fail rating based on the Offeror’s responses to the following conditions:

· Offeror has demonstrated that its proposed monopulse Mode S system provides civilian Air Traffic services and separation of aircraft for Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) listed in Attachment J-20 and currently meets the following conditions:

· Is currently operational and in use by an ANSP or

· Derived from that operational production baseline in use by an ANSP

· Offeror has provided:

· Locations of the Offeror’s operational system(s),

· ANSP(s) utilizing the system, and

· Point of contact within the ANSP for the FAA to validate this information.

The Eligibility for Consideration review resulting in a Pass/Fail rating will be determined by whether the information provided by the Offeror addresses all the requirements of L.7 (Volume V).

DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBILITY OF PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTORS

Independent of the FAA’s initial screening decision, the Contracting Officer will make a determination of Offeror responsibility. To be eligible for award, an Offeror must be determined by the Contracting Officer to be a responsible contractor in accordance with the FAA Acquisition Management System (AMS), Section T.3.2.2.7 – Contractor Qualifications. The FAA will consider the elements identified below to determine a potential contractor’s responsibility.

AMS Contractor Qualifications In accordance with AMS Section T.3.2.2.7, a responsible contractor:

(1) Has or can obtain adequate financial resources to perform a contract;

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

(3) Has a satisfactory performance history;

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

(5) Has appropriate accounting and operational controls that may include, but are not limited to:

(a) Production control;

(b) Property control systems;

(c) Quality assurance programs;

(d) Appropriate safety programs; and

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

In addition to the above qualifications, the Offeror’s data submitted in response to Section L.23.6 will be considered to determine a potential contractor’s responsibility.

Other Sources of Data In accordance with AMS Section T.3.2.2.7.A.1.c(2), the CO may use the following sources of information to support responsibility determinations:

(1) Records and experience data, including verifiable knowledge of personnel within the contracting office, audit offices, contract administration offices, and other contracting offices.

(2) The prospective contractor, including proposal information, questionnaire replies, financial data, information on production equipment, and personnel information.

(3) Other sources such as publications, suppliers, subcontractors, customers of the prospective contractor, and financial institutions.

System for Award Management The CO will review the "Exclusions" portion of the "Performance Information" capability in the System for Award Management (SAM) to ensure prospective contractors are not listed.

EVALUATION ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

The basis for award will be made against the evaluation factors contained within this document. All factors will be included in the evaluation for award. The order of importance for the factors is as follows:

Technical is more important than Past Performance. Past Performance is more important than Management. As differences between non-price factors become smaller, the importance of the Price factor increases.

Volume I – Technical Factor The Technical Factor consists of five subfactors listed in order of importance from most to least, as follows:

1. Systems Engineering Design and Development

2. System Maturity

3. System Test and Evaluation

4. Implementation and Activation

5. Lifecycle Support Volume II – Past Performance Factor The Past Performance Factor does not contain any subfactors – it is a single factor.

Volume III – Management Factor The Management Factor consists of four subfactors listed in order of importance from most to least, as follows:

1. Program Management (including subcontracting plan)

2. Draft Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)

3. Offeror's Risk, Issue, and Opportunity (RIO)

4. Earned Value Management (EVM) System Volume IV– Cost/Price Factor The Cost/Price Factor does not contain any subfactors – it is a single factor. Price will be included in the best value trade off, but is not scored or rated.

Volume V – Other Documentation

1. SIR, Section K, Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors

2. Organizational Conflicts of Interest Plan

3. Business Declaration Form

4. Completed SF-33 and Model Contract

5. Required Data for Eligibility for Consideration Requirements

6. Required Data for Determination of Responsibility Requirements

7. Subcontractor Agreement(s) and Letters of Intent

EVALUATION PROCESS OVERVIEW

The FAA will perform evaluations based on the Offeror’s response to the SIR and in accordance with the evaluation factors for award as described herein.

Each volume of the Offeror’s proposal will initially be reviewed to determine whether it meets the requirements of Sections L.7 and includes all of the required information. Omission of information may be considered grounds for eliminating a proposal from further consideration.

During the evaluation, the FAA will perform the following activities:

· Evaluate and score the Offeror’s Technical Proposal against the evaluation subfactors in Sections M.8.1 using the general evaluation criteria in Section M.7.1 and Table 1. The FAA will:

· Assign a score to each Technical subfactor and calculate the Technical subfactor weighted score based on assigned subfactor weights.

· Calculate the overall Technical factor score based on assigned subfactor weights.

· Evaluate and rate the Offeror’s Past Performance against the evaluation factor contained in Section M.9 and Table 2.

· Evaluate and score the Offeror’s Management Proposal against the evaluation subfactors in Sections M.10.1 using the general evaluation criteria in Section M.7.1 and Table 1. The FAA will:

· Assign a score to each Management subfactor and calculate the Management subfactor weighted score based on assigned subfactor weights.

· Calculate the overall Management factor score based on assigned subfactor weights.

· Evaluate the Offeror’s price proposal in accordance with Section M.11.

The Offeror must clearly address, in detail, each factor, and subfactor as identified in Section L.

Compliance Review The FAA will review all proposals to ensure completeness, response to all subfactors, and adherence to Section L of the solicitation. Those proposals that do not meet the SIR requirements will be rejected. The Government reserves the right to waive minor irregularities.

Eliminating Proposals The FAA reserves the right to eliminate Offerors’ proposals from consideration for award prior to a final award decision. The Offeror’s failure to meet the minimum eligibility for consideration and determination of responsibility requirements as identified in Sections M.2.2 and M.3, respectively, will make the Offeror ineligible for award.

At any point during the evaluation of Offers, the FAA may determine, based on information submitted by an Offeror, that the Offeror does not have a reasonable chance of receiving an award. If the FAA makes that determination, then that Offeror will be rendered no longer eligible for award and will be eliminated from further consideration. Any Offeror eliminated from further consideration will be officially notified in writing.

FAA Riskand opportunitY Assessment The FAA will perform a risk and opportunity assessment throughout the Offeror’s proposal. Risks and opportunities are defined as:

· Risk: A risk is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that has a probability of occurring that may have a negative impact to the successful accomplishment of the SIR requirements.

· Opportunity: An opportunity is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that has a probability of occurring that may have a positive impact to the successful accomplishment of the SIR requirements. The FAA may accept or reject any opportunity identified during the SIR evaluation.

Risks and opportunities identified within any aspect of the Offeror’s proposal will be assessed as to their overall positive or negative impact to include cost/price, schedule, and technical performance and likelihood of occurrence.

PROPOSAL EVALUATION FACTORS

The FAA will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal using the four factors and associated subfactors listed below, which will be individually rated or scored in accordance with this document. Scores will be numerical values. Evaluation characteristics within each subfactor will not be individually scored, but will contribute to the overall score of the respective subfactor.

1) Technical Factor Subfactors:

· Subfactor 1: System Engineering Design and Development

· Subfactor 2: System Maturity

· Subfactor 3: System Test and Evaluation

· Subfactor 4: Implementation and Activation

· Subfactor 5: Lifecycle Support

2) Past Performance Factor

3) Management Factor Subfactors:

· Subfactor 1: Program Management

· Subfactor 2: Draft IMS

· Subfactor 3: Offeror’s RIO

· Subfactor 4: EVM System

4) Cost/Price Factor General Evaluation Criteria The evaluation of the Technical and Management Factors will utilize the following general evaluation criteria to reflect the understanding of the requirement, the soundness of the offered approach and the completeness of the proposed solution:

1) Approach: The degree to which the proposal demonstrates comprehension of the requirements and provides a viable plan and means for, including resources to implement a successful program.

2) Understanding: The degree to which the approach for implementing the requirements is logical, feasible, and realistic, and indicative of a full comprehension of the SIR and technical requirements.

3) Completeness: The degree to which the approach and methodology addresses all the requirements, and provides supporting analysis for how the requirements will be achieved in a logical manner to implement a successful program.

4) Soundness: The validity and achievability of the selected approach. The degree to which the technical, performance, and schedule risks are identified and mitigated.

Technical Factor Evaluation Process The Offeror’s Volume I contains the Technical Factor Proposal and will be evaluated to assess each Offeror’s understanding of the work to be performed under the resultant contract. The Offeror’s Volume I will be evaluated to obtain capability information and to assess the Offeror’s response to the SIR. The FAA will assess the degree to which the Offeror’s approach addresses all of the subfactors of the Technical Approach. The FAA will assess the Offeror’s proposal to determine the degree to which the Offeror provides supporting analysis for how the technical and performance requirements will be achieved and describes their capabilities to implement the Mode S Beacon Replacement System (MSBRS) program.

For each Volume I response, the FAA will:

1) Review, analyze, and consider all information received in response to the evaluation factor and its associated subfactors and any information obtained from written communications.

2) Evaluate each Technical Proposal subfactor by assessing strengths and weaknesses noted for each subfactor. These strengths and weaknesses will be considered in the determination of scores for each subfactor. Scores will not be determined based on the quantity of strengths and weaknesses but will be based upon the overall impacts (positive and negative) of the combination of strengths and weaknesses. See Table 1, Technical and Management Factor and Subfactor Scores, for definitions of the associated scores.

3) Score the Technical Subfactors by summing the raw score of each subfactor score multiplied by an assigned weight.

4) Score the Technical Factor by summing the Technical Subfactor scores multiplied by their assigned weight.

Management Factor Evaluation Process The Offeror’s Volume III contains the Management Factor Proposal and will be evaluated to assess each Offeror’s understanding of the work to be performed under the resultant contract. The Offeror’s Volume III will be evaluated to obtain capability information and to assess the Offeror’s response to the SIR. The FAA will assess the degree to which the Offeror’s approach addresses all of the subfactors of the Management Factor. The FAA will assess the Offeror’s proposal to determine the degree to which the Offeror provides supporting analysis for how the management requirements will be achieved and describes their capabilities to implement the MSBRS program.

For each Volume III response, the FAA will:

1) Review, analyze, and consider all information received in response to the evaluation factor and its associated subfactors and any information obtained from written communications.

2) Evaluate each Management Proposal subfactor by assessing strengths and weaknesses noted for each subfactor. These strengths and weaknesses will be considered in the determination of scores for each subfactor. Scores will not be determined based on the quantity of strengths and weaknesses but will be based upon the overall impacts (positive and negative) of the combination of strengths and weaknesses. See Table 1, Technical and Management Factor and Subfactor Scores, for definitions of the associated scores.

3) Score the Management Subfactors by summing the raw score of each subfactor score multiplied by an assigned weight.

4) Score the Management Factor by summing the Management Subfactor scores multiplied by their assigned weight.

Technical and Management Factor and Subfactor Scores Table 1: Technical and Management Factor and Subfactor Scores Enhanced capabilities are capabilities that exist within the Offeror’s core system and are not defined in FAA-E-7716 that would pose potential benefits to the NAS. Enhanced capabilities may be identified as opportunities, but will not count towards the Technical Subfactor score.

The proposal significantly exceeds the SIR requirements in a manner that benefits the Government. The combined impact of the strengths considerably outweighs the combined impact of the weaknesses and as such the chance of unsuccessful performance is very low.

The proposal exceeds the SIR requirements in a manner that benefits the Government. The combined impact of the strengths outweighs the combined impact of the weaknesses and as such the chance of unsuccessful performance is low.

The proposal meets the SIR requirements. Any identified strength(s) are offset by any weaknesses, or will have little to no impact on performance and as such the chance of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

The combined impact of the identified weaknesses outweighs the combined impact of any identified strengths and as such the chance of unsuccessful performance is moderate to high.

The combined impact of the identified weaknesses outweighs the combined impact of the identified strengths (if any) and as such the chance of unsuccessful performance is high.

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL FACTOR – VOLUME I

Sections M.8.1.1-M.8.1.5 below define the Technical Factor’s Subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical Proposal Subfactor scores will be weighted and combined to generate the overall Technical Factor score.

Subfactor 1: Systems Engineering Design and Development The FAA will assess the degree to which the Offeror:

1) Demonstrates that the proposed MSBRS architecture satisfies the functional and performance requirements specified in FAA-E-7716 (Attachment J-5). The FAA will use the Offeror provided System Specification Technical Requirements Crosswalk (Attachment J-23) to assess the extent to which the proposed MSBRS will require architecture, hardware, and software modifications to meet the requirements in the FAA-E-7716 (Attachment J-5).

The FAA will assess enhanced capabilities identified in the Offeror’s System Specification Technical Requirements Crosswalk based on their potential benefits to the NAS. Enhanced capabilities pertaining to Mode-5 or datalink levels 3/4/5 will not be evaluated or assessed by the FAA. The FAA reserves the right to identify additional enhanced capabilities that will not be evaluated or assessed during the SIR evaluation. The FAA may define and identify enhanced capabilities as opportunities in accordance with Section M.6, but will not count towards the technical subfactor score.

2) Demonstrates a comprehensive Engineering Process, including the following:

a. An approach for planning, controlling, and conducting a fully integrated engineering effort to meet the MSBRS System Specification.

b. Systems engineering processes to ensure the integrity of the MSBRS interface design, information security, and human engineering aspects.

c. Identification of system safety risks and mitigation strategies.

3) Demonstrates a comprehensive and viable approach to their Software Engineering and Development Process

a. Approach for allocation of requirements to Commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS), newly developed code, prototype software, and/or modified existing code, and all aspects of software life cycle processes to include planning, development, verification, configuration management, and quality assurance, including RTCA/DO-278A AL5.

b. As to how the proposed software design elements will ensure effective delivery of the MSBRS, lead to certifiable software delivery, and address all aspects of the software life cycle process; and describe its software development organization and its methodology for project tracking, quality control and oversight.

c. To interface with existing NAS systems, including CARSR, ASR-9, STARS, ERAM and RMMS/RMLS, that is achievable and ensures data and performance integrity.

4) Describes how the Offeror plans to develop and implement a security program to address information/data security needs and considerations for the security requirements in the MSBRS System Specification.

5) Demonstrates a comprehensive Human Factors Engineering and Development process, including the following:

a. The Human Factor design standards and approaches that were utilized in the development of the proposed Maintenance and Air Traffic Terminals.

b. An assessment of the development/redesign required for the Offeror’s proposed Maintenance and Air Traffic Terminals to comply with the FAA Human Engineering requirements defined in FAA HF-STD-001 and HF-STD-003F.

6) Demonstrates an understanding of and provides a realistic approach to addressing the Technical Scenarios, including:

a. Clearly defined capabilities within the Offeror system for reducing transponder occupancy and controlling FRUIT.

b. Clearly defined features the Offeror’s system has for minimizing false targets and avoiding interference with other sensors.

c. Detailed explanation as to how the Offeror’s system utilizes ADS-B information to reduce 1030/1090 MHz congestion.

Subfactor 2: System Maturity The FAA will evaluate maturity of the Offeror’s system through conduct of an Operational Capability Demonstration (OCD) that will be performed at WJHTC (see Section L.9). The OCD will assess the following key performance parameters:

1) Target/FRUIT capacity in both Terminal and En Route environments

2) Interrogation rates

3) Probability of detection

4) Code accuracy and validity

5) False targets

6) Positional accuracy

7) Latency

8) Target resolution

9) Target acquisition/dissemination time

10) Mode S/ATCRBS Merging The Offeror must provide all internal plot, interrogation and reply recordings generated during the OCD as defined in the OCD Plan (see attachment J-34) for the FAA assessment of system performance. A FAA provided data recording PC will be utilized to record disseminated plot data at the surveillance user output during conduct of the OCD.

The FAA will also witness and assess an Offeror demonstration of their proposed system’s Maintenance and Air Traffic Terminals capabilities in the following areas:

1) Maintenance Terminal:

a. System control functions

b. Data recording functions

c. Data playback functions

d. Fault status display

e. Real-time target display

f. Adaptation viewing/modification functions

g. System Cold Start

2) Air Traffic Terminal:

a. System control functions

b. System status monitoring functions Subfactor 3: System Test and Evaluation The FAA will assess the degree to which the Offeror:

1) Demonstrates a viable test program, including major components, processes, procedures, and the tests necessary to validate that the MSBRS meets the system design and performance requirements as delineated in FAA-E-7716 and the test program defined in the SOW. This includes resource allocation, test staffing, facilities, equipment, and test tools to ensure achievement of test planning and conduct in accordance with required schedules.

2) Demonstrates an understanding of the planned sequence of test activities by phase (e.g. development (in-plant and on-site), production acceptance and site acceptance test), including test events, test locations, durations, interdependencies, and integration of subsystems.

3) Demonstrates an understanding of all test tools, both hardware and software, required to complete the proposed test program, including a detailed discussion of the RF target/FRUIT simulator that will be provided by the Offeror. The FAA will assess the impact of any test tool development required to meet test program needs with respect to the effort associated with development and validation.

4) Demonstrates an understanding of the specific test methodologies to be employed (demonstration, test, analysis, inspection, test with data, and design review) to verify that all FAA-E-7716 requirements are met.

5) Demonstrates effective quality assurance and configuration management processes to be used for testing throughout the contract.

6) Demonstrates effective regression testing processes to effectively address system deficiencies, anomalies, and test failures.

Subfactor 4: Implementation and Activation The FAA will assess the degree to which the Offeror:

1) Demonstrates a comprehensive approach, including plans, processes, and schedule (including assumptions) for site preparation, installation, integration, optimization, site testing, and acceptance for implementation of the MSBRS at all operational site configurations. This includes plans for integrating and prioritizing Government airport and contractor activities to meet or exceed planned schedules.

2) Demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the plans and processes to address implementation requirements based on the MSBRS implementation process flow (see Attachment J-24).

3) Demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of how to effectively integrate the MSBRS into an operational environment while minimizing impacts to Air Traffic and local airport operations (e.g., radar downtime or no radar coverage) in support of MSBRS implementation.

Subfactor 5: Lifecycle Support The FAA will assess the degree to which the Offeror:

1) Demonstrates a comprehensive plan for developing a component-level training program that ensures technical personnel responsible for maintenance and certification on equipment used in the NAS are proficient in performing their assigned duties.

2) Demonstrates a comprehensive process to provide second level engineering support in accordance with the MSBRS maintenance concept, and to organize those functions in a manner that can be sustained for the system lifecycle.

3) Demonstrates a comprehensive plan for managing and providing required supply support functions (e.g., stocking, storing, issuing, and shipping expendable and repairable items, and a process for diagnosis, repair, inspection and certification of failed LRUs), including Interim Contractor Depot Level Support (ICDLS).

4) Demonstrates a comprehensive plan and process to transition Interim Contractor Depot Level Support and second level engineering functions, along with associated data, to the FAA.

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR – VOLUME II

The FAA will evaluate the following Past Performance Factor data:

1. Offerors’ Past Performance Descriptions

2. Past Performance Surveys

3. Offeror Information on Performance Variances and Corrective Actions

4. Other Sources of Past Performance Data.

Offerors’ Past Performance Descriptions The FAA will assess the Offeror’s Past Performance based on the past performance descriptions submitted in accordance with Section L addressing the following: three (3) past performance descriptions, ongoing or completed within the past five (5) years, to determine the level to which the Offeror’s described past performance was for contracts of similar scope and complexity as the MSBRS Program requirements, including implementation and support requirements.

In the absence of past performance descriptions as defined above, the Prime Offeror’s past performance descriptions will be assessed based upon their three (3) most recent past performance credentials closest to the MSBRS Program requirements, as defined in this SIR, on the following criteria:

· The level to which described PP is for contracts of similar scope and complexity as the MSBRS Program requirements.

· The level to which described PP is for contracts of similar scope and complexity for MSBRS implementation and support requirements.

If there are less than three (3) relevant past performance description submittals, the quality of those submittals will be considered in determining acceptability.

Past Performance Surveys The FAA will also assess the Past Performance Surveys to determine the quality of performance based upon feedback from the Offeror’s customers and to review for consistency between the Offeror’s information and their customer’s information. The survey asks the Offeror’s customers to rate and provide written comments relative to the Offeror’s performance for their respective contract requirements. In addition to the completed Past Performance Surveys, the FAA 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 under the contract requirements, cost, schedule and performance).

For each contract provided to support past performance, the Offeror will be evaluated on the following:

1) Quality: 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, overall technical excellence, innovative approaches, ability to overcome conflicts, and responsiveness to technical direction

2) Timeliness: The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates timeliness of performance in the areas of meeting event milestones, current and accurate schedule reporting, ability to make corrective action in event of schedule variances, and meeting completion dates

3) Cost Control: The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates its past performance for cost control in the areas of delivering products or services within cost; timely and accurate invoicing; effective cost reporting and estimating; and effective cost containment

4) Program Management: The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates its past performance in program management based on its ability to identify, communicate, and mitigate risks in a timely manner, effective use and reporting of Earned Value Management, and effective integration of subcontract activities

5) Customer Satisfaction: The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates overall customer satisfaction in the areas of responsiveness to customer needs; promptness of notification of problems; and reasonableness, flexibility, and effectiveness of recommended solutions

6) Administration: The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates its past performance in contract administration in the areas of compliance with contract terms and conditions, effectiveness in meeting contract requirements at minimal cost, willingness to negotiate changes in good faith, accuracy and timeliness of administrative reports, performance on incentivized contracts, and any quality awards or certifications Offeror Information on Performance Variances and Corrective Actions The FAA will also evaluate the following criteria with regard to the Past Performance Survey submittals:

· Did the Offeror provide information on any cost, schedule and/or performance variances that impacted program milestones?

· Did the Offeror describe the corrective actions taken to resolve those variances?

The FAA reserves the right to contact the Offerors’ customer(s) directly to request submission of the Past Performance Survey (if it is not submitted in a timely fashion).

Other Sources of Past Performance Data The FAA reserves the right to consider Past Performance data from other sources such as publicly available reports, and/or data from such systems as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). The FAA may, as appropriate, use present and/or recent past performance data obtained from a variety of sources, not just those contracts identified by the Offeror. As appropriate, this information may be included and considered in the evaluation documentation and selection process as a potential risk or a potential benefit.

Past Performance data described above will be rated using Table 2 for ratings defined as High Confidence, Medium Confidence, Confidence, Low Confidence, or No Confidence based on the following criteria:

Table 2: Past Performance Factor Ratings

If the Offeror receives a past performance assessment of “No Confidence” that Offeror will be ineligible for award.

FACTOR 3: MANAGEMENT FACTOR – VOLUME III

Sections M.10.1.1-M.10.1.4 below define the Management Factor’s Subfactors:

Factor 1: Management Proposal Subfactor scores will be weighted and combined to generate the overall Management Factor score.

Subfactor 1: Program Management The FAA will assess the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates the following:

1) Demonstrates an effective approach and methodology for meeting program management requirements.

2) Provides detail and substantiation for the plans, organization, processes, resources, and metrics required to support effective program management.

3) Demonstrates an understanding of how to manage and integrate subcontractors for the seamless performance of work and communication to the FAA.

4) Provides detailed estimates of hours and labor categories by Contractor Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) for all Cost Reimbursable CLINs.

5) Provides resumes of key personnel (in accordance with Section H.16 and Attachment J-32 of this SIR) with relevant experience and competency to provide leadership and direction in support of the MSBRS program.

6) Demonstrates an effective approach for staffing the program across all team and subcontract members. This includes a description of a staffing plan that addresses the resource requirements to accomplish all tasks, and include the number of hours and labor categories by CWBS.

The FAA will assess the degree to which the Offeror meets or exceeds the following minimum subcontracting goals within their Subcontracting Plan:

1) At least twenty-five (25) percent of the planned subcontract dollar value must be allocated to small businesses.

2) At least ten (10) percent of the total planned small business subcontract dollar value must be allocated to small disadvantaged businesses.

3) At least five (5) percent of the total planned small business subcontract dollar value must be allocated to small women-owned businesses.

4) At least three (3) percent of the total planned small business subcontract dollar value must be allocated to service-disabled veteran-owned businesses.

The adequacy of a Subcontracting Plan will be used by the Contracting Officer to determine prospective Contractor responsibility to manage its subcontractors including teaming partners, major subcontractors, suppliers and other vendors. If the apparently successful Offeror fails to meet or exceed the minimum subcontracting goals, that Offeror may be ineligible for award.

Subfactor 2: Draft Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) The FAA will assess the degree to which the Offeror:

1) Provides a comprehensive draft IMS with substantiation that identifies the contractor schedule and milestones to meet contract schedule requirements, including activities, critical path and internal dependencies for procurement, systems engineering, software development, systems integration, logistics, test, implementation, checkout and acceptance, production, and training.

2) Demonstrates traceability to the CWBS and identifies external interdependencies (e.g., FAA and suppliers).

3) Demonstrates an achievable approach for meeting first article and production milestones, to include the listing, quantities, and schedule of long-lead materials.

Subfactor 3: Offeror's Risk, Issue, and Opportunity The FAA will assess the degree to which the Offeror:

1) Demonstrates a comprehensive RIO assessment of the proposed approach to meet the requirements of the SIR.

2) Demonstrates an effective strategy and approach for managing cost, schedule, and technical performance RIOs for all program aspects. This includes development, integration, testing, security, first article delivery, installation, safety, production, delivery rate, and long lead-times for materials.

3) Provides a comprehensive list of all risks, issues and opportunities and corresponding mitigation strategies using the guidance from the Air Traffic Organization Program Management Organization Risk, Issue, and Opportunity Management Plan (ATO PMO RIO) (Attachment J-28).

Subfactor 4: Earned Value Management (EVM) System The FAA will assess:

1) The degree to which the Offeror, and where applicable the subcontractor(s), provides evidence of complying with EIA-748 for Earned Value Management Systems or, in the event the Offeror does not have a certified EVM system, the viability of the Offeror’s plan to demonstrate compliance with Section I, AMS Clause 1.13-2.

2) The Offeror’s understanding of the EVM requirements and approach to meeting the requirements with specific details on the information to be reported, the reporting mechanisms and the process for identification of risks and making corrections in coordination with FAA.

3) The degree to which the proposed EVM approach will:

a. Accurately measure cost and schedule progress and identify cost/schedule variances in a timely manner;

b. Adequate linkage with other components of the management process to implement effective corrective actions and process improvements;

c. Meaningfully measure and manage progress to ensure that all schedules are effectively met.

4) A description of application of EVM to subcontractors and means for ensuring timely incorporation so that overall progress can be measured and system can be used effectively for predictive purposes.

5) The viability of the incorporation of subcontractor EVM cost and schedule reporting to meet a seamless approach that provides timely and complete EVM information.

FACTOR 4: COST/PRICE FACTOR – VOLUME IV

The FAA will evaluate proposed pricing of all CLINs for reasonableness, and review proposed pricing for balance, completeness, consistency and traceability. Cost/Price proposals will not be scored or rated. In addition, cost type CLINs will be evaluated for realism in accordance with AMS Guidance T.3.2.3, Cost/Price Methodology. The FAA reserves the right to evaluate the other CLINs for price realism.

· Reasonableness – The FAA will evaluate each price proposal for reasonableness in accordance with AMS Policy Section 3.2.3 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.

· Balance – The FAA will review each price proposal to determine whether the Offeror’s proposal contains unbalanced pricing of separately priced line items. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable Total Evaluated Price (TEP), the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. 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.

· Completeness/Consistency/Traceability – The FAA will review each price proposal to determine whether it includes all required pricing information, aligns with summary pricing tables, and provides adequate and traceable supporting pricing details. The FAA at its sole discretion may require additional information or reject proposals lacking completeness, consistency, and traceability.

· Realism – The realism analysis will be considered in terms of the Offeror’s understanding of requirements. The realism analysis determines whether an Offeror’s proposed prices 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.

Cost/Price Workbook Evaluation (Volume IV, Sections I, II, III, and IV) The FAA will evaluate the Offeror’s cost/price proposals using the populated J-33 Attachment, Cost/Price Workbook (CPW) and additional supporting worksheets submitted by the Offeror. In evaluating offers for source selection, the FAA will use a Total Evaluated Price (TEP), which includes the complete scope of the program across the entire contract period of performance (base and all options). The evaluation of options does not obligate the FAA to exercise the option(s). The TEP will be the sum of:

1. The Most Probable Cost (MPC) for priced CPFF CLINs;

2. Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs; and

3. CLINs with FAA provided Not-to-Exceed amounts.

The FAA will evaluate any costs associated with the test and evaluation of each enhanced capability for reasonableness. The FAA reserves the right to include these costs in the trade-off as part of the best value determination.

The result of the cost realism evaluation will be a determination of the MPC to the FAA. As part of this process, the FAA will conduct a Quantitative and Qualitative (Q&Q) analysis of the proposal. The results of the Q&Q will be utilized in calculating the MPC. The MPC will be determined by adjusting the Offeror’s proposed cost to reflect any additions or reductions to the cost elements to realistic levels based on the result of the Q&Q analysis. The TEP, including the MPC, will be used in the trade-off evaluation to determine best value.

With respect to the T&M Rates, the FAA will evaluate proposed fully burdened labor rates populated in Tab J-33.4 for reasonableness.

If the FAA determines the proposed price to be unrealistically low, the proposal may be eliminated from competition on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirements or has developed and submitted an impracticable and/or unsubstantiated proposal.

Review of Fee Structure (CPFF CLINs only) For each CPFF CLIN, the FAA will review the proposed fees which will be part of the MPC.

Cost/Price Assumptions, Estimating Methodology, Deviations, and Contingencies (Volume IV, Section V) The FAA reserves the right to reject any request for any exceptions, deviations, or assumption. The FAA reserves the right to deem a statement that contradicts a SIR requirement an exception or deviation, whether or not the offeror identifies it as such.

M-16