SMR4 Section M - Evaluation Factors For Award Final.pdf

SIR 693KA7-25-R-00001

Surface Movement Radar, Model 4 (SMR4)

Section M: Evaluation Factors for Award

M-i

PART IV – SECTION M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

TABLE OF CONTENTS

M.1 CLAUSES AND PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (JULY 2019) 1

M.2 BASIS FOR AWARD 1

M.3 DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBILITY 2

M.4 EVALUATION PROCESS 3

M.5 EVALUATION TERMS 4

M.6 FACTOR AND SUB-FACTOR RATING 5

M.7 EVALUATION ORDER OF IMPORTANCE 6

M.8 FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL FACTOR CRITERIA– VOLUME I 7

M.9 FACTOR 2 – MANAGEMENT EVALUATION CRITERIA –VOLUME II 10

M.10 FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA –VOLUME III 11

M.11 FACTOR 4 – COST AND PRICE FACTOR – VOLUME IV 12

M.12 FACTOR 5 – SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING FACTOR – VOLUME V, L.11.1 14

M.13 VOLUME V –SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN, OFFER AND OTHER

DOCUMENTATION 15

M-1

M.1 Clauses and Provisions Incorporated by Reference (July 2019)

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: https://fast.faa.gov/contractclauses.cfm.

(End of clause)

Table 1. AMS Clauses and Provisions

AMS

CLAUSE

TITLE DATE

3.2.4-31 Evaluation of Options April 1996

3.3.1-30 Progress Payments Not Included November 1997

M.2 BASIS FOR AWARD

M.2.1 Compliance Review

The FAA will review each Offeror’s proposal to determine compliance with the instructions provided in Section L. The Offeror must clearly address Section L and each factor and sub-factor identified in Section M. Any proposal failing to address Section L and the Section M factors and sub-factors may be indicative of the Offeror's lack of understanding in response to the FAA’s requirements. Omission of information in proposals in accordance to Section L may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from award consideration or may impact the resulting evaluation rating. Prior to compliance review, FAA will prescreen the proposals for the eligibility for proposal consideration. The FAA may take these actions, in its sole discretion, without engaging in prior communication with the Offeror. Any pages in the proposals exceeding the page limit requirements identified in Section L will not be evaluated beyond the page limitation. Failure to comply with all requirements and instructions of the Screening Information Request (SIR) may result in the Offeror being eliminated from consideration for award.

M.2.2 Eligibility for Proposal Consideration

Eligibility for Proposal Consideration submission (Volume V, L.11.2.5) will be verified by the FAA. The following information will be verified:

1) the Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) utilizing your SMR system, and

2) the location of your operational SMR system.

If the FAA determines that an Offeror fails to demonstrate the requirements in Section L.4.2, the Offeror’s proposal will not be evaluated, and the Offeror will be eliminated for award due to not meeting the eligibility requirements.

The CO will notify Offerors in writing if they are deemed ineligible for consideration once the determination has been made.

M-2

M.2.3 Selection and 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 determined to represent the best value to the FAA. Best value is defined as the proposal that presents the most advantageous offer to the FAA, based on the evaluation criteria in Section M. Under the best-value approach the FAA assesses non-price/cost factors and price/cost based on the evaluation criteria in this section and their relative order of importance and selects the Offeror proposing the combination of non-price/cost factors and price/cost representing the best value to the FAA. The best value approach provides the opportunity for trade-offs between non-price/cost factors and price/cost and does not require an award to be made to either the Offeror submitting the highest-rated proposal or the Offeror submitting the lowest price/cost, although the ultimate award may be to either one of those Offerors. The FAA reserves the right to identify risks throughout the evaluation process and consider them in the best value analysis.

FAA anticipates awarding a single contract for this procurement but reserves the right to award more than one contract or no contract as a result of this SIR. Offerors are advised that the FAA reserves the right to make an award based on initial proposals received, without additional communications, discussions, or negotiations. The FAA also reserves the right to reject any or all offers and to waive any requirement, minor irregularity, or discrepancy if it is in the best interest of the FAA to do so.

Award, if any, will be made to the responsive and responsible Offeror whose evaluated proposal conforms to the terms of this SIR and whose proposed solution represents the best value to the Government.

M.2.4 Eliminating Proposals

If at any time during eligibility verification or compliance review the FAA concludes that an Offeror is not likely to receive award, the FAA may eliminate the Offeror from further consideration for an award.

Any Offeror eliminated from further consideration will be notified in writing by the CO once the determination has been made.

M.3 DETERMINATION OF 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), Procurement Guidance, T.3.2.2.7 – Contractor Qualifications and T3.2.2.7A1 Responsibility Determination of Prospective Contractors.

M.3.1 Determination

The CO will assess Offeror proposals for information to determine responsibility. Offeror should ensure it has included any appropriate documentation to support the Offeror:

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.

M-3

In the event an Offeror is deemed non-responsible, that Offeror may, as appropriate, be notified and eliminated from further participation in this procurement, and from the award.

M.4 EVALUATION PROCESS

Evaluations will be conducted using source evaluation procedures established by the Government, using the factors and sub-factors ratings identified in Section M.6. Proposals with only general statements of understanding of the SIR requirements, or proposals with omissions, incomplete responses, unrealistic technical, schedule, or cost proposals, or inconsistencies, may be deemed reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence or a failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the SIR requirements.

Information not in its appropriate section per the Section L instructions and not appropriately referenced may be deemed to have been omitted.

M.4.1 Source Evaluation

The FAA will use a Source Evaluation Team (SET) to review offers. The SET is comprised of teams, boards, and individuals that can operate independently of each other.

Evaluation will include the following:

1) Determine eligibility for proposal consideration based on the requirements in M.2.2.

2) Perform compliance review.

3) Using the evaluation factors contained in this Section M, the SET will assess each proposal using information submitted by the Offeror and information obtained from outside sources.

a. The SET will evaluate the Offeror’s Technical and Management Proposals, including each sub-factor, and assign ratings based on Table 3. Technical and Management Factor and Sub-factor Ratings.

b. The SET will assess the Offeror’s past performance, and assign a rating based on Table 4.

Adjectival Ratings for Past Performance.

c. The SET will assess the Offeror’s cost price proposal separately from other Volumes, including each sub-factor, for a determination of reasonableness, and review proposed pricing for balance, completeness, consistency, and traceability. Cost type CLINs will be reviewed for realism.

d. The SET will assess the Offeror’s small business subcontracting plan separately from other Volumes for determination of Government acceptance, per rating in Table 5.

Adjectival Ratings for Small Business Subcontracting Plan

e. The SET will review the compiled results from all evaluation factors and use Best Value Tradeoff to select an offer.

M.4.2 Offeror Communications

Certain Offeror communications may necessitate amendments to the SIR. All competing Offerors will be notified by amendment to the SIR.

Offerors should not assume that they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss, or revise their proposals. Any information obtained during communications may, as appropriate, be used to clarify, substantiate, and validate information provided in an Offeror’s proposal.

The FAA may, at any time and within its sole discretion, communicate with the Offerors orally or in writing during the course of the source selection process. The FAA reserves the right to conduct communications with one, some, all, or none of the Offerors. Any information obtained during communications may be used to clarify, substantiate, and validate information provided in an Offeror’s proposal, at the FAA’s sole discretion. Communications with one or more Offerors does not require

M-4 communication with all Offerors. Responses to clarification requests may be treated the same as information submitted with the written proposals and may serve as the basis for strengths, weaknesses, risk, or deficiency. Offerors are advised that the FAA reserves the right to make an award based on initial proposals received without communications. Accordingly, Offerors are strongly encouraged to ensure that their proposals are complete and fully responsive to the SIR upon initial submission.

M.5 EVALUATION TERMS

M.5.1 Definition of Terms

The table below defines the terms that FAA will use during evaluation.

Table 1. Source Evaluation Definitions

Strength

An aspect of a proposal that would positively impact performance of the resulting contract, exceed the minimum requirements, or otherwise benefit the Government. Also, may contain enhancing features that provide supply or service above and beyond what is called for that 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. A flaw that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance. A weakness is also an omission from the Offeror’s proposal that contributed to a deficiency in meeting the evaluation criteria or is otherwise a shortcoming of the proposal that has the potential to degrade contract performance. A weakness may be correctable through discussions and revisions.

Deficiency A material failure to meet the requirement or a combination of weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level. Deficiencies are fatal errors that can’t be corrected, without major revisions.

Clarification

Communication with an Offeror for the sole purpose of eliminating minor irregularities, informalities, ambiguities, or apparent clerical mistakes in its offer. It is achieved by explanation or substantiation, either in response to Government inquiry or as initiated by the Offeror. Note: An ambiguity is a situation in which something can be understood in more than one way, and it is not clear which meaning is intended.

Omission Information requested in the SIR that was not provided in the proposal. An omission is not necessarily a deficiency if is not material in nature and the intent of the Offeror can be readily determined.

Risk

An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that, when assessed as to its probability of occurrence and its effect, presents an uncertainty as to the ability of the Offeror to successfully perform the required effort and/or proposed approach within cost and schedule. An aspect (e.g., cost, price, technical, performance or schedule) that would be possible if the Offeror is selected.

High Risk Highly likely to cause significant decreases in performance or increases in cost and/ or schedule, even with increased Contractor emphasis and mitigation, and increased Government monitoring.

M-5

Medium Risk

Could potentially cause some decreases in performance or increases in cost and/ or schedule. However, increased Contractor emphasis and mitigation, and increased Government monitoring may be able to overcome difficulties.

Low Risk Limited potential to cause decreases in performance or increases in cost and/ or schedule. Normal Contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will probably be sufficient to overcome difficulties.

M.6 FACTOR AND SUB-FACTOR RATING

M.6.1 Technical and Management Factor and Sub-factor Ratings

Technical evaluators will use adjectival ratings of Offeror’s technical and management proposals. Sub-factors and factors will receive one of five (5) adjectival ratings: Excellent, Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, and Unsatisfactory. The definitions for the adjectival ratings are shown in the table below.

Table 2. Technical and Management Factor and Sub-Factor Ratings

Rating Description

Excellent

The Offeror’s proposal contains no deficiencies and fully addresses all aspects of the criteria and demonstrates an excellent approach/solution and understanding of the requirements.

Many strengths exist, far outweighing any weaknesses. The highest quality of contract performance is anticipated with very low risk.

Good The Offeror’s proposal contains no deficiencies; fully addresses all aspects of the criteria and demonstrates a very effective approach/solution and understanding of the requirements. Some weaknesses may exist; however, the weaknesses, if any, are outweighed by strengths. A high quality of contract performance is anticipated with low risk.

Satisfactory

The Offeror’s proposal contains no deficiencies; addresses all aspects of the criteria and demonstrates an adequate approach/solution and understanding of the requirements.

Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. A quality contract performance is anticipated with an acceptable amount of risk.

Marginal

The Offeror’s proposal contains no deficiencies; addresses all aspects of the criteria and demonstrates an adequate approach/solution and understanding of the requirements.

Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. A quality contract performance is anticipated with an acceptable amount of risk.

Offeror’s response does not respond adequately to the full range of requirements and work effort. The Offeror’s response does not clearly meet the SIR requirements and does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the SIR requirements. The combined impact of weaknesses outweighs the combined impact of any strengths.

Unsatisfactory

The Offeror’s proposal contains many deficiencies and does not address all aspects of the criteria and/or does not present evidence demonstrating an adequate approach/solution and understanding of the requirements. Many weaknesses and/or omissions exist creating an unacceptable risk.

M-6

M.6.2 Past Performance Factor Ratings

Past performance evaluators will rate past performance in accordance with the following ratings:

Table 3. Adjectival Ratings for Past Performance

Rating Definition

Acceptable

The Offeror’s record of past performance indicates there is very little risk associated with receiving quality products, timely services, and full contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Offeror’s experience indicate the Offeror will meet or exceed the requirements of the contract.

The Contractor has demonstrated experience with projects of similar size, scope, and complexity.

Unacceptable

The Offeror’s record of past performance indicates that there is some potential risk associated with receiving quality products, timely services, and contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Offeror’s experience indicate the Offeror may have some problems during performance of the delivery order. The Contractor has demonstrated limited experience with projects of similar size, scope, and complexity.

M.6.3 Small Business Subcontracting Plan Factor Ratings

The Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Volume V) will be rated based upon the following rating definitions:

Table 4. Adjectival Ratings for Small Business Subcontracting Plan Evaluation

Rating Definition

Acceptable The Offeror’s response demonstrates a viable small business subcontracting plan that meets the specified subcontracting goals and the AMS Clause 3.6.1-4 content requirements.

Unacceptable The Offeror’s response does not demonstrate a viable small business subcontracting plan and/or does not meet the specified subcontracting goals or the AMS Clause 3.6.1-4 content requirements.

M.7 EVALUATION ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

All evaluation Factors and Sub-Factors will be considered in the evaluation for award. The evaluation Factors and Sub-Factors are listed in descending order of importance. Technical evaluation factor is more important than Management evaluation factor; which is more important than Past Performance evaluation factor; all of which are more important than Cost and Price evaluation factor. As differences between non-price factors become smaller, the importance of the Cost and Price factor increases. Small Business Subcontracting Plan factor will be assessed on an individual basis; there will be no comparison of Offerors to reach the volume-level ratings.

Listed below are the five (5) Factors that will be used to evaluate the Offeror’s proposal. Each Sub- Factor contains Elements. Elements within each Sub-Factor will be individually evaluated and contribute equally to its parent Sub-Factor’s overall rating. Elements will not be individually scored. The ordering of Elements within the Sub-Factors does not indicate a relative order of importance.

M-7

M.7.1 Factor 1 – Technical

The Technical Factor consists of six sub-factors, listed in descending order of importance as follows:

Sub-Factor 1 – Systems Design and Performance Sub-Factor 2 – System Engineering Sub-Factor 3 – System Test and Evaluation Sub-Factor 4 – Transfer and Data Rights Sub-Factor 5 – Implementation Sub-Factor 6 – Integrated Logistics Support

M.7.2 Factor 2 – Management

The Management Factor consists of three sub-factors, listed in descending order of importance as follows:

Sub-Factor 1 - Program Management Sub-Factor 2 - Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) Management and Draft IMS Sub-Factor 3 – Risks, Issues, and Opportunities Management

M.7.3 Factor 3 – Past Performance

The Past Performance Factor does not contain any sub-factors – it is a single factor.

M.7.4 Factor 4 – Cost and Price

The cost and price factor does not include any sub-factors – it is a single factor.

M.7.5 Factor 5 – Small Business Subcontracting Plan

The small business subcontracting plan factor does not include any sub-factors – it is a single factor.

M.8 FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL FACTOR CRITERIA– VOLUME I

The FAA will evaluate the Technical Proposal (Volume I) for the degree to which the proposed solution meets the requirements, provides a sound approach, identifies, and mitigates any risks. The identified risks will be considered in determination of adjectival ratings.

Technical Proposal volume will be evaluated using the Sub-Factors delineated below. An adjectival rating will be assigned to each Sub-Factor. Definitions of the adjectival ratings are provided in Table 3.

Technical and Management Factor and Sub-factor Ratings. An overall adjectival rating will be given to Technical Proposal volume, based on each Sub-Factor rating.

Evaluators will identify and evaluate each Technical Proposal Sub-Factor by assessing strengths, and weaknesses noted for each Sub-Factor. These strengths and weaknesses will be considered in the determination of adjectival ratings for each Sub-Factor in accordance with the definitions in Table 2.

Source Evaluation Definitions. Ratings 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.

M.8.1 Sub-factor 1: Systems Design and Performance

The FAA will evaluate the following elements to the degree to which the Offeror:

1) Demonstrates that the proposed SMR architecture satisfies the requirements specified in the SMR4 System Specification, FAA-E-37024 (Attachment J-03) and the SMR4 to Surface Surveillance System Interface Requirements Document, NAS-IR-nnnnnnn (Attachment J-04).

M-8

a. Proposed SMR4 will meet architecture, hardware, and software modifications requirements in FAA-E-37024 (Attachment J-03) and in NAS-IR-nnnnnnn (Attachment J-04). The FAA will use the Offeror provided SMR4 System Specification Crosswalk (Attachment J-07) and other parts of the proposal, to make this assessment.

b. Describes the scope of development and the level of effort required for the Offeror’s system to meet all FAA-E-37024 (Attachment J-03) requirements with an identification of requirements that cannot be met. Where a performance requirement cannot be met, provides the performance that the proposed system can achieve.

c. Describes the scope of development required for the Offeror’s proposed system to meet NAS-IR-nnnnnnn (Attachment J-04), requirements as they pertain to the SMR4.

2) The FAA will evaluate the proposed system’s ability to meet specified requirements based on the Offeror’s response addressing the following characteristics:

a. Transmitting and receiving capabilities including pulse shaping, modulation techniques, transmit frequencies, transmit power, sensitivity time control, and pulse repetition frequencies.

b. Features for minimizing false targets due to clutter, weather, radio frequency interference, and multipath.

c. Capabilities for minimizing interference with other SMRs operating within the same frequency band.

d. Features or design characteristics for mitigating multiple time around clutter and time sidelobes.

e. Plot extraction function, adaptability, and the impact the plot extractor has on target resolution.

f. Tracking performance for closely spaced targets including how it handles merging and unmerging of target tracks.

g. System redundancy features including the capability of servicing the offline channel.

h. Anti-icing capabilities of the antenna array, including standard and optional heated array and any system differences when installed with a heated array.

i. Antenna beam squint across temperature extremes and any mitigation features included in the system design.

j. Methods or features of the antenna subsystem designed to mitigate bird strikes.

k. Supportability of the proposed Operating System (end of life) and current security features

M.8.2 Sub-factor 2: Systems Engineering

The FAA will evaluate the following elements to the degree to which the Offeror:

1) Demonstrates a comprehensive engineering approach for conducting a fully integrated engineering effort to meet the requirements of the SMR4 System Specification, FAA-E-37024 (Attachment J-03) and the SMR4 to Surface Surveillance System Interface Requirements Document, NAS-IR-nnnnnnn (Attachment J-04).

2) Demonstrates a comprehensive and viable approach to software engineering and development process, including:

M-9

a. A viable approach for producing certifiable software and all aspects of the software life cycle processes to include planning, development, verification, configuration management, quality assurance, including compliance with RTCA/DO-278A AL4.

b. The software design description of the proposed system, including identification of the major computer software configuration items (CSCI), identification of the software language used in each major CSCI, and the lines of code for each major CSCI.

3) Demonstrates a viable approach for developing an interface with existing NAS Surface Surveillance systems, ASDE-X and ASSC, that is achievable and ensures data and performance integrity.

4) Demonstrates how the Offeror plans to develop and implement the security requirements in the SMR4 System Specification, FAA-E-37024, and the SOW.

5) Demonstrates the strategies that will be employed during the design, development, integration, and test phases to reduce risk and to meet cost, performance, and scheduling milestones.

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

M.8.3 Sub-factor 3: System Test and Evaluation

The FAA will evaluate the following elements to 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 SMR4 meets the requirements as delineated in FAA-E-37024 (Attachment J-03) 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. 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 a viable test facility to be used for in-plant development test. Including any testing limitations with respect to requirements verification.

5) 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-37024 (Attachment J-03) requirements are met.

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

M.8.4 Sub-factor 4: Transfer and Data Rights

The Government will evaluate:

a) The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed approach for Data Rights unambiguously meets the Government’s level of rights in data, to include technical data, software, and software and system documentation.

M-10

b) The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed approach facilitates the transfer of Data Rights and system elements to FAA for all hardware, software, software licensing, proprietary systems, interfaces, processes, algorithms, tools, documentation, designs, and personnel duties and responsibilities required for the FAA, or an FAA competitively procured designated third party to continue the operation, maintenance, repair, and enhancement and modifications of the system. This includes but is not limited to source code, system security (ISS) data, system requirements data, system specification data, configuration management data, training, technical documentation, and all other data produced under this contract.

c) The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed approach for Data Rights unambiguously enables the Government to use, modify, release, or disclose the technical data, software, or software and system documentation to enable the Government to sustain surface surveillance during the life of the system.

M.8.5 Sub-factor 5: Implementation

The FAA will evaluate the following elements to the degree to which the Offeror:

1) Demonstrates a comprehensive approach, including plans, processes, and schedule (including assumptions) for site preparation, installation, optimization, site acceptance testing, and contractor acceptance inspection and includes plans for providing site and personnel security and safety.

2) Demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the plans and processes to address Generic Site Implementation Plan (GSIP) (Attachment J-06) implementation requirements.

3) Provides a viable approach to efficiently install and optimize the SMR4 that minimizes impacts to Air Traffic and local airport operations during SMR4 implementation.

M.8.6 Sub-factor 6: Integrated Logistics Support

The FAA will evaluate the following elements to the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a viable approach for the following:

1) Maintenance and support of fielded systems.

2) Training and documentation for technical personnel for SMR4 maintenance, restoration, and system certification.

3) Training and documentation for Second Level Engineers including but is not limited to the generation, maintenance, testing, analysis, and debugging of all the functional hardware and software at a Government Second Level Support facility.

4) Interim Contractor Depot Level Support (ICDLS) and the transition of depot functions to the FAA Logistics Center.

M.9 FACTOR 2 – MANAGEMENT EVALUATION CRITERIA –VOLUME II

The Management Proposal volume will be evaluated to assess each Offeror’s understanding of the work to be performed and identify and mitigate any risks under the resultant contract. The identified risks will be considered in determination of adjectival ratings.

Management Proposal volume will be evaluated using the Sub-Factors delineated below. An adjectival rating will be assigned to each Sub-Factor below. Definitions of the adjectival ratings are provided in

M-11

Table 3. Technical and Management Factor and Sub-factor Ratings. An overall adjectival rating will be given to Management Proposal volume, based on each Sub-Factor rating.

Evaluators will identify and evaluate each Management Proposal Sub-Factor by assessing strengths and weaknesses noted for each Sub-Factor. These strengths and weaknesses will be considered in the determination of adjectival ratings for each Sub-Factor in accordance with the definitions in Table 2.

Source Evaluation Definitions. Ratings 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.

The FAA will evaluate the management volume in its entirety based on the following sub-factors.

M.9.1 Sub-factor 1: Program Management

The FAA will evaluate the following elements to the degree to which the Offeror:

1) Demonstrates successful and effective program management with accountability, resource, schedule, and cost control.

2) Demonstrates design, implementation, and management processes for technical performance metrics and Earned Value Management.

3) Demonstrates an effective and efficient approach to manage and integrate subcontractors for the seamless performance of work, communication, and reporting to the FAA.

4) Demonstrates that key personnel have relevant experience and competency to provide leadership and direction for this program.

M.9.2 Sub-factor 2: Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) Management and Draft IMS

The FAA will evaluate the following elements to the degree to which the Offeror:

1) Demonstrates their approach for IMS development, maintenance, and management.

2) Comprehensively incorporates the CWBS, activities, milestones, and the critical path for the entire scope of this contract into the Draft IMS, including an achievable approach for meeting first article and production milestones.

3) Identifies external dependencies in the Draft IMS, including the FAA and supplier activities and deliveries, including expected long lead times.

M.9.3 Sub-factor 3: Risks, Issues, and Opportunities (RIO) Management

The FAA will evaluate the following elements to the degree to which the Offeror:

1) Demonstrates the effectiveness of the risk management approach including the identification of risks, issues, opportunities, and mitigation strategies per Section L.8.5.2.

2) Demonstrates an effective strategy and approach for managing cost, schedule, and technical risks for the overall program.

3) Proposes opportunities that provide associated benefits to the FAA. In this instance, the benefit is the potential for the FAA to better manage costs and improve schedule.

M.10 FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA –VOLUME III

The FAA will evaluate past performance based on relevance and performance. The following areas will be considered in the evaluation to determine acceptable relevance and performance:

M-12

1) Quality of Product or Service: The FAA will determine whether the Offeror demonstrates its past performance in delivering quality products or services in the areas of compliance with contract requirements, responsiveness to technical direction, ability to overcome program, technical or scheduling conflict, innovative approaches and solutions to meet contract requirements and overall technical excellence.

2) Timeliness of Performance: The FAA will determine whether the Offeror demonstrates its past performance for timeliness of performance in the areas of meeting event milestones, meeting delivery schedules, fulfilling contract requirements, ability to successfully execute corrective action plans, and in meeting completion dates.

3) Cost Control: The FAA will determine whether 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.

4) Program Management: The FAA will determine whether the Offeror demonstrates its past performance in its ability to identify, communicate and mitigate risks, effectively use and report using the Earned Value Management, and effectively integrated subcontract activities.

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

6) Administration: The FAA will determine whether the Offeror demonstrates its past performance for compliance with contract terms and conditions, effectiveness in meeting contract requirements at minimum cost, willingness to negotiation contractual changes in good faith, and accuracy, and timeliness of administrative reports.

Offerors are to note that in conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the FAA may use information provided by the Offeror, information included by the Offeror’s customers on completed questionnaires, and data obtained from other sources.

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. In the event the FAA does not receive three Past Performance Surveys from an Offeror and its subcontractors respectively as requested in Section L, the Offeror may receive a lower rating. While the FAA reserves the right to augment with sources other than those identified by the Offeror, the FAA is under no obligation to do so.

FAA will rate the Past Performance as either Acceptable or Unacceptable in accordance with definitions found in Table 4.

M.11 FACTOR 4 – COST AND 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 T3.2.3, Cost and Price Methodology. The FAA reserves the right to evaluate the other CLINs for price realism. With respect to T&M rates, the FAA will evaluate the proposed fully burdened labor rates for reasonableness but will not include the fully burdened labor rates in the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). In addition, the FAA will evaluate material prices proposed for reasonableness.

M-13

M.11.1 Reasonableness

The FAA will evaluate each price proposal for reasonableness in accordance with AMS Policy Section

3.2.3 and AMS 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 Government will evaluate how well each offeror’s proposal supports elements of cost, work hours, loading factors and rates over the life of the proposed contract. Proposed rates and factors also will be verified with the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) via rate checks or formal audits, as appropriate.

M.11.2 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.

M.11.3 Completeness, Consistency, and 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 eliminate proposals lacking completeness, consistency, and traceability.

M.11.4 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.

In accordance with AMS T3.2.3, the Government will perform a cost realism analysis by identifying the specific elements of a cost estimate or a proposed price and comparing those elements against reliable and independent means of cost measurement. This analysis judges whether or not the estimates under analysis are verifiable, complete, and accurate, and whether or not the offeror’s estimating methodology is logical, appropriate, and adequately explained. This verifies that the costs or prices proposed fairly represent the costs likely to be incurred for the proposed services under the offeror’s technical and management approach. The offeror’s Most Probable Cost (MPC) is determined by adjusting each offeror’s proposed cost, and fee when appropriate, to reflect any cost additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis.

M.11.5 Total Evaluated price (TEP) and Cost Price Workbook Evaluation

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 submission by the Offeror by copying the prices submitted within the Offeror’s Cost Model to the validation version to ensure consistency of evaluation.

The FAA will evaluate the Offeror’s cost price proposals using the populated Cost Price Workbook (CPW) (Attachment L-6) 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

M-14 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) Time and Materials (T&M) CLINS;

3) Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs; and

4) CLINs with FAA provided Not-to-Exceed amounts.

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 provided by the Offeror for reasonableness.

For the T&M and FFP CLINs, the FAA reserves the right to perform price realism in accordance with AMS Procurement Guidance T3.2.3(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 evaluation of options does not obligate the FAA to exercise the option(s).

M.11.6 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.

M.11.7 Cost Price Assumptions, Estimating Methodology, Deviations, and Contingencies

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.11.8 FAA Consideration for Volume Discounts

The FAA will not include the Offeror’s volume discount pricing in the TEP.

M.12 FACTOR 5 – SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING FACTOR – VOLUME V,

L.11.1

M.12.1 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Large Businesses Only)

The FAA will evaluate the Small Business Subcontracting Plan submitted by Offerors that are not small businesses. The file containing Small Business Subcontracting Plan within Volume V will be subject of evaluation.

The FAA will evaluate each Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan as either Acceptable or Unacceptable in accordance with Table 5; it will not be numerically scored.

M-15

The FAA will evaluate whether the Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan is fully compliant with FAA AMS Clause AMS Clause 3.6.1-4 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (April 2024), as well as the goals set forth in SIR Section L.11.1.

The FAA will evaluate whether the Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan adequately demonstrates that the subcontracting goals apply over the full life of the contract, including base period and each exercised option period.

This solicitation does not establish minimum goals for an acceptable plan. This solicitation reflects objectives FAA encourages contractors to adopt.

Offerors shall make every attempt to meet specified goals, unless the resulting awardee can substantiate reasons the goals are unattainable.

Small Business Administration (SBA)-certified small business are not required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Therefore, any Offeror that is small business will receive an Acceptable rating for this volume. Since the Government’s subcontracting goals are stated in terms of the percentage of the total planned subcontracting dollars, an Offeror with no subcontractors will receive an Acceptable rating by default.

If the winning Offeror receives a rating of Unacceptable, they must correct the deficiencies prior to contract award. If the apparently successful Offeror fails to propose an acceptable small business subcontracting plan, that Offeror will be ineligible for award.

Small Business Subcontracting Plan factor will be assessed on an individual basis; there will be no comparison of Offerors to reach the volume-level ratings.

M.13 VOLUME V –SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN, OFFER AND

OTHER DOCUMENTATION

The FAA will evaluate the adequacy of the Offeror’s Offer/Other Documents based on the provision of signed agreement(s) or letters of intent with all proposed subcontractors binding the subcontractor for the performance of the specified proposed work under the Offeror’s proposal (Refer to SIR Section L - Volume V).

The FAA will evaluate the adequacy of the Offeror provided information based upon the following:

1) There is a completed Small Business Subcontracting Plan with no discrepancies or issues that could affect the satisfactory accomplishment of the Contract.

2) There is a completed Solicitation, Offer and Award and Model Contract with no discrepancies or issues that could affect the satisfactory accomplishment of the Contract.

3) There is a completed Representations and Certifications, and Other Statements (SIR Section K) with no discrepancies or issues that could affect the satisfactory accomplishment of the Contract.

4) All Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) have been adequately identified and, where there are any OCI concerns, an adequate proposal/plan has been provided to remove these OCIs.

5) There is a completed Business Declaration Form attached to the Offer with no discrepancies or issues that could affect the satisfactory accomplishment of the Contract

6) There is a Required Data for Eligibility for Proposal Consideration submitted as part of the Offer with no discrepancies or issues that could affect the satisfactory accomplishment of the Contract.

M-16

7) Required Data for Determination of Responsibility/Financial capability will be evaluated to ensure the risk of default due to inability to financially support the efforts is negligible.

8) There is a Subcontractor Agreement(s) and Letter(s) of Intent submitted as part of the Offer with no discrepancies or issues that could affect the satisfactory accomplishment of the Contract.

9) There is a completed Proposal Compliance Matrix with no discrepancies or issues that could affect the satisfactory accomplishment of the Contract compliance review.

The Offeror’s Offer and Other Documents, with the exception of the Small Business Subcontracting Plan, will not be scored or rated.

END OF SECTION M

M.13 VOLUME V –SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN, OFFER AND OTHER DOCUMENTATION