Amendment 3 SAI SIR Section M 2.15.24.docx

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Surface Awareness Initiative 12/1027/20243 Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

- Evaluation Factors for Award

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.

3.6.1-10 Program (January 1999)

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

3.2.4-29 Evaluation Exclusive of Options (April 1996) 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. At a minimum, to be determined responsible, a prospective Offeror must:

· Have adequate financial resources to perform the contract or the ability to obtain adequate 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;

· Be qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws or regulations; and In addition, to be determined responsible, the Offeror must have an acceptable Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting Plan.

Award Process This acquisition is being conducted in accordance with the FAA Acquisition Management System (AMS). Under this acquisition, the FAA intends to develop a Qualified Product List (QPL), from which airport authorities (using their independent authority and processes) and the FAA may elect to procure products for use at airports. If the FAA so elects, the FAA will utilize the QPL to procure Surface Awareness Initiative (SAI) solutions, as outlined in Section C, Program Work Statement (PWS), under a best value or LPTA determination on a per-block of airports or per-airport site basis. The FAA reserves the right to update QPL requirements and associated evaluation criteria in subsequent updates throughout the duration of the program.

This acquisition will be evaluated under a three-tiered approach as defined below:

· Tier 1: Technical Evaluation

· Tier 2: Operational Capabilities Demonstration (OCD)

· Tier 3: Issuing Orders

The FAA may communicate with Offerors orally or in writing during the evaluation and over the course of the source selection process. The FAA reserves the right to conduct communications with none, one, some, or all competing Offerors. Any information obtained during communications may be used, at the FAA’s sole discretion, to clarify, substantiate, or validate information provided in an Offeror’s proposal. Responses to communication requests may be treated the same as information submitted with the written proposals and information disclosed as a result of oral or written communication with an Offeror may be considered by the FAA in the evaluation of an Offeror’s proposal, at the FAA’s sole discretion. Communications with one or more Offerors do not necessitate communications with other Offerors. The FAA is not required, however, to request any clarifications or accept any Offeror revisions. Content of the communications may vary among Offerors. The FAA is not obligated to advise Offerors of weaknesses, risks, or deficiencies identified in their proposals. 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 FAA reserves the right to: (i) reject any and all offers, (ii) waive any requirements, and (iii) accept minor irregularities and discrepancies if it is determined to be in the best interest of the FAA to do so.

Basis for Award The Basis for advancement or award will be determined according to the following tiered process:

Tier 1: Technical Evaluation The FAA will evaluate each Offeror’s Technical Volumes and determine if the submitted Technical Volume passes or fails to advance in accordance with the process described below (M.3.2.1). The purpose of Tier 1 is to ascertain if the Offeror’s SAI solution meets requirements, consistent with the Attachment J.1 Minimum Requirements Document (MRD) and the Performance Work Statement (Section C) for SAI.

Offerors whose solutions meet the criteria will proceed to Tier 2 and will be required to conduct a mandatory OCD. Offerors whose solutions fail to meet the criteria will be excluded from further activities and will not be considered for inclusion on the QPL.

Tier 2: Operational Capability Demonstration (OCD) Offerors whose solutions meet the criteria of the Technical Evaluation will be required to conduct an OCD in accordance with process described in Section L3.3.3. The purpose of the OCD is to permit the FAA to ascertain if the Offeror’s SAI solution represents the system described in the Technical Proposal and to permit the Offeror to demonstrate key features of proposed system, consistent with the Attachment J.1 Minimum Requirements Document (MRD) and the Performance Work Statement (Section C) for SAI, and to demonstrate any objective performance parameters identified in the Technical Proposal.

The FAA will evaluate each Offeror’s OCD and determine if the demonstration passes or fails to advance in accordance with the process described below (M.3.2.2). Offerors whose OCDs are determined to be satisfactory, will receive written notification from the FAA and will be provided the option to enter into a Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA) and to have qualified products added to the QPL.

In response to this written notification, Offerors will be required to provide written confirmation of their desire for their solutions to be included on the QPL. The solutions of vendors failing to provide this confirmation will be excluded from the QPL.

Tier 3: Issuing Work Orders The FAA intends to issue one or more work orders from the QPL. The selection determination will be based on the evaluation of each Offeror’s proposal in accordance with the process described below (M.3.2.3). Throughout the life of the contract and based upon availability of funding and operational need, the FAA may award one or more work orders to vendors for their Qualified Product to be provided at one or multiple airports. The FAA may elect, however, not to make any work orders from the QPL.

Best value describes the solution that is the most advantageous to the FAA based on technical evaluation, past performance, total evaluated price, FAA’s independent risk and opportunity assessment and the other criteria set forth herein. It does not require that an award be made to either the Offeror(s) submitting the highest rated technical solution or to the Offeror(s) submitting the lowest cost/price, i.e., the cost/price proposal with the lowest total evaluated price may not be 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 reserves the right to not issue work orders for any reason.

Source Selection Process Each volume of the Offeror’s proposal will first be reviewed to determine whether it meets the requirements of Section L and includes all required information. Omission of any information may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from further consideration, and to do so without any communication with the Offeror prior to contract award.

Technical Volume Evaluation for Consideration for the QPL For each Offeror’s technical proposal contained in Volume I.A, the FAA will:

i. Review, analyze, and consider all information received in Volume I.A of each technical proposal.

ii. Evaluate each Technical Volume subfactor as Pass or Fail according to the rating definitions contained in Table 1Table 1.

iii. Evaluate the overall technical volume as Pass or Fail according to the rating definitions contained in Table 1Table 1.

iv. Identify the Offerors that have passed the Technical Evaluation.

v. Inform all Offerors if they have passed or failed the Technical Evaluation and if a vendor’s product failed to meet evaluation criteria.

OCD Evaluation for Placement on the QPL For each Offeror whose overall technical volume has passed the Technical Volume Evaluation the FAA will:

i. Invite the Offerors to conduct an OCD according to the process described in Section L and referenced documents.

ii. Evaluate each OCD subfactor as Pass or Fail according to the rating definitions contained in Table 2.

iii. Evaluate the OCD as Pass or Fail according to the rating definitions contained in Table 2

iv. Identify the Offerors that have passed the OCD Evaluation

v. Invite each successful Offeror to enter into a BOA and have their products added to the QPL.

vi. Inform unsuccessful Offerors they failed the Technical Evaluation.

vii. Identify successful Offerors whose products will be added to the QPL.

Evaluation for FAA Work Orders from the QPL Under a best value determination, for each vendor with a Qualified Product the FAA will:

i. Evaluate the Technical Volume against the criteria stated in Section M.6.1.

ii. Evaluate the Cost/Price proposal of each Offeror on the QPL against the criteria stated in Section M.6.2 .

iii. Evaluate the Past Performance proposal of each Offeror on the QPL against the criteria stated in Section M.6.3.

iv. Evaluate the Small Business proposal of each Offeror on the QPL on the criteria stated in Section M.6.4.

v. Conduct an FAA Independent Risk and Opportunity Assessment in accordance with Section M.3.4.

vi. Perform a best value analysis of any differentiating findings between the Technical, Past Performance, Cost/Price proposal evaluations and the FAA’s independent risk and opportunity assessment, to arrive at an informed, fair, and reasoned best value decision. This tradeoff analysis will be conducted on a per-block or per-airport site basis.

For an LPTA determination, for each vendor with a Qualified Product the FAA will:

i. Evaluate the Cost/Price proposal of each Offeror on the QPL against the criteria stated in Section M.6.2 .

ii. Review the basis for exclusion criteria including updated Past Performance information.

iii. Determine the lowest price technically acceptable offer.

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.

On a per-block of airports basis or on a per-airport basis, the FAA make a determination by selecting from one of the following four categories, as deemed in the best interest of the FAA:

· Category 1: The non-price volumes (I and III) collectively are much more important than Volume II (Price). As the differences among Offerors in the non-price evaluation decrease, the importance of the Volume II (Price) evaluation increases.

· Category 2: 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, the importance of the Volume II (Price) evaluation increases.

· Category 3: Volume II (Price) is more important that non-price volumes (I and II).

· Category 4: Low Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA): selection of a technically acceptable solution with lowest evaluated price

For Categories 1 thru 3 above Volume I (Technical) is more important than Volume III (Past Performance).

For the FAA’s Tier III evaluation the Technical Volume the Subfactors within a Factor are of equal importance. The importance of the Technical Factors is as follows:

Most Important

Operations and Maintenance

Implementation

Risks and opportunities identified within any aspect of an Offeror's solution/product, and within any of the evaluation factors, will be independently analyzed as to the risks’ and opportunities’ potential impact on successful installation, performance, and use of the solution/product at the relevant airport site. Along with other risks, risks identified due to inconsistencies and discrepancies between various aspects of the proposal will be considered, as will risks that pertain to unsubstantiated representations made by any Offeror with any aspect of their proposal. Risks and opportunities will not impact the FAA’s assessment of strengths and weaknesses or of the technical evaluation against the criteria stated in Section M.6.1; rather, the risks and opportunities will be evaluated as a standalone factor.

Basis for Exclusion The FAA reserves the right to eliminate Offerors’ proposals from consideration at any stage of the award process. An Offeror may be excluded if it is deemed to have submitted a non-responsive or incomplete proposal. Additionally:

· Any Offeror with a rating of “fail”, as defined in Table 1Table 1 for Technical Evaluation will be excluded from further consideration.

· Any Offeror with a rating of “fail”, as defined in Table 2, for the OCD Evaluation will be excluded from further consideration.

· Any Offeror with a rating of “no confidence”, as defined in Table 4, for the Past Performance volume may be excluded from further consideration.

· Any Offeror with a rating of “unacceptable”, as defined in Table 5 in the Small Business Subcontracting Plan volume may be excluded from further consideration.

· As it relates to any of the requirements of the solicitation including conduct of the Operational Capability Demonstration, a failure to meet, an omission, or a vague response to one or more requirements may be deemed an incomplete or non-compliant proposal 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, which may be grounds for elimination from the competition.

· Proposals with unbalanced prices may be rejected.

· If at any time it becomes apparent that an Offeror cannot meet a requirement.

· 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, with or without prior communication to the Offeror.

The Contracting Officer will notify in writing any Offeror eliminated from further consideration.

FAA Assessment of Risk and Opportunities In support of the best value determination for issuing work orders, the FAA will conduct a separate risk and opportunity assessment and determine a risk and opportunity rating of each Offeror’s entire response to the SIR. Potential risks to successful installation or performance of requirements, as well as opportunities will be identified, reviewed, and assessed by the evaluators. Individual risks and opportunities identified within any aspect of the Offeror’s proposal will be assessed as to their potential impact on cost (including but not limited to internal FAA costs and manpower), schedule and work performance, likelihood of occurrence, and variability of outcome. At a minimum, the following will be considered risks and evaluated accordingly:

· Noted inconsistencies and discrepancies within and between various volumes of each Offeror’s proposal;

· Errors of omission;

· Unsubstantiated representations made by an Offeror in any aspect of the proposal; and

· Anything identified as potentially impacting cost, schedule, or work performance.

Depending on the likelihood and impact for identified risks the FAA will assign an overall adjectival rating of High, Moderate, or Low Risk according to the definitions in Table 6.

Depending on the likelihood and impact for identified opportunities the FAA will assign an overall adjectival rating of High, Moderate, or Low Opportunity according to the definitions in Table 6.

The overall risks and opportunities assessment is more than a tallying of the number of high, moderate, or low risks against high, moderate, or low opportunities. Even within each of the adjectival ratings of High, Moderate, or Low, the realistic impact of risks and/or opportunities may vary and, therefore, may diversely impact the FAA’s best value determination when compared to other risks or opportunities within the same adjectival rating. For example, an Offeror’s solution with a high technical score, low cost, and numerous high opportunities may still be deemed inappropriate for award under a best value analysis because of a single high risk. In another example, an Offeror’s single high risk may more negatively impact it best value analysis than another Offeror’s two or more high risks.

Finally, the existence and/or level of risks and opportunities may be airport specific. For example, an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal may rate as a high risk for a particular airport, and a low risk or not a risk at all for another airport. An aspect that is a risk at one airport may also rate as an opportunity for another airport.

Tier 1: Volume I.A Technical Evaluation For each Technical proposal under consideration the FAA will evaluate the following Factors.

System Factor For each proposal under consideration the FAA will evaluate the following System Subfactors:

System Subfactor: Architecture and Overall Solution The FAA will evaluate whether an Offeror’s system architecture enables the proposed solution to meet the critical SAI requirements while being feasible at the airport(s) under consideration.

System Subfactor: Functional and Performance Requirements The FAA will evaluate whether an Offeror’s proposed solution will meet the critical SAI functional and performance requirements. Critical requirements are identified within Attachment J.3.

System Subfactor: Technology Readiness The FAA will evaluate whether the proposed solution meets the SAI technology readiness level (TRL) requirement.

System Subfactor: Manufacturing Readiness The FAA will evaluate whether an Offeror’s proposed solution meets the SAI manufacturing readiness level (MRL) requirement.

Implementation Factor For each Technical proposal under consideration the FAA will evaluate the following Implementation Subfactors:

Implementation Subfactor: Planning The FAA will evaluate whether an Offeror’s Implementation Approach will meet the SAI planning requirements.

Implementation Subfactor: Installation The FAA will evaluate whether an Offeror’s Implementation Approach will meet the SAI installation requirements.

Implementation Subfactor: Acceptance The FAA will evaluate whether an Offeror’s Implementation Approach will meet the SAI system acceptance requirements within the delivery timeframe identified within Section F.7.

Operations and Maintenance Factor For each Technical proposal under consideration the FAA will evaluate the following Operations and Maintenance Subfactors Operations and Maintenance Subfactor: Operations Management The FAA will evaluate whether each Offeror’s proposed solution will meet the SAI System Control and Service Monitoring, Operations, Maintenance, and Service Restoration requirements.

Operations and Maintenance Subfactor: Customer Support The FAA will evaluate whether each Offeror’s proposed solution will meet the SAI Customer Support, Call Center, Trouble Ticketing requirements.

Operations and Maintenance Subfactor: Training The FAA will evaluate whether each Offeror’s proposed solution will meet the SAI Training requirements.

Technical Volume Rating Definitions The FAA will use the following definitions for the evaluation of each subfactor and for the Technical Volume. Note that Factors are used for organizational purposes only and will not be evaluated.

Table 1: Rating Definitions used for the Tier 1 Technical Volume Evaluation

Tier 2: Volume I.CB Operational Capability Demonstration Evaluation For each proposal under consideration the FAA will evaluate the following Factors for the demonstrated capability:

System Factor For each proposed capability under consideration the FAA will evaluate the following System Subfactors:

System Subfactor: Architecture The FAA will evaluate whether the architecture of the Offeror’s demonstrated capability aligns and is consistent with the architecture provided within the Technical Volume.

System Subfactor: Functional Requirements The FAA will evaluate whether the Offeror’s demonstrated capability meets all the critical SAI functional requirements. Critical requirements are identified within Attachment J.3.

System Subfactor: Performance Requirements The FAA will evaluate whether the Offeror’s demonstrated capability meets all the critical SAI performance requirements.

System Subfactor: Technology Readiness The FAA will evaluate whether the Offeror’s demonstrated capability meets the SAI technology readiness level (TRL) requirement.

System Subfactor: Manufacturing Readiness The FAA will evaluate whether the Offeror’s demonstrated capability meets the SAI manufacturing readiness level (MRL) requirement.

Implementation Factor For each proposed product under consideration the FAA will evaluate the following Implementation Subfactors:

Implementation Subfactor: Planning The FAA will evaluate whether the Offeror’s demonstrated Implementation Approach meets all the SAI planning requirements.

Implementation Subfactor: Installation The FAA will evaluate whether an Offeror’s demonstrated Implementation Approach meets all the SAI installation requirements.

Implementation Subfactor: System Acceptance The FAA will evaluate whether an Offeror’s demonstrated Implementation Approach meets all the SAI system acceptance requirements within the service delivery timeframe identified within Section F.7.

Operations and Maintenance Factor For each proposed product under consideration the FAA will evaluate the following Operations and Maintenance Subfactors:

Operations and Maintenance Subfactor: Operations Management The FAA will evaluate whether an Offeror's demonstrated capability meets all the SAI System Control and Service Monitoring, Operations, and Maintenance requirements.

Operations and Maintenance Subfactor: Customer Support The FAA will evaluate whether an Offeror’s demonstrated capability meets all the SAI Customer Support, Call Center, and Trouble Ticketing requirements.

Operations and Maintenance Subfactor: Training The FAA will evaluate whether an Offeror’s demonstrated capability meets the SAI Training requirements.

Evaluation Ratings the Operational Capability Demonstration The FAA will use the following definitions for the evaluation of each subfactor.

Table 2: Rating Definitions used for the Tier 2 Operational Capability Demonstration Evaluation

Tier 3: Awarding a Work Order In support of awarding a work order, the FAA will conduct a Technical Evaluation, a Past Performance Evaluation, and a Small Business evaluation as follows:

Volume I: Technical Evaluation In support of the source selection determination, the FAA will evaluate the Technical Volume (I.A and I.B) and the OCD (I.CB) for all Offerors listed on the QPL as stated below. Information gathered at the OCD will be considered in evaluating each Offeror’s Technical proposal and will be factored into the determination of the overall evaluation results, as well as the independent risk and opportunity assessment.

According to the Factors and Subfactors Identified in Sections M.6.1.1 thru M.6.1.4 below, the FAA will:

Table 3: Technical Rating Definitions used for the Tier 3 Technical Evaluation

For each qualified product under consideration the FAA will evaluate the following Factors.

System Factor For each qualified product under consideration the FAA will evaluate the following System Subfactors:

System Subfactor: Architecture and Overall Solution The FAA will evaluate the degree to which an Offeror’s system architecture enables the proposed system to meet all the SAI requirements.

System Subfactor: Functional and Performance Requirements The FAA will evaluate the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed system will meet all the SAI functional and performance requirements.

Implementation Factor For Tier 3 evaluations, the information identified in Sections L.5.1.2 including L.5.1.2.1 through L.5.1.2.3 will be considered for the following: For each Technical proposal under consideration the FAA will evaluate the degree to which an Offeror’s Implementation Approach will meet all the SAI planning, installation, and acceptance requirements.

Implementation Subfactor:

Operations and Maintenance Factor For Tier 3 evaluations, the information identified in Sections L.5.1.3.1 and L.5.1.3.2 will be considered for the following: For each Technical proposal under consideration the FAA will evaluate the degree to which each Offerors proposed solution will meet all the SAI System Control and Service Monitoring, Operations, and Maintenance requirements, and all the SAI Customer Support, Call Center, and Trouble Ticketing requirements. .

Experience Factor For each Technical proposal under consideration the FAA will evaluate the degree to which an Offerors experience applies to the activities for SAI, provides an integrated and effective team, and increases the likelihood of successfully meeting schedule, functional, and performance requirements.

Enhanced Functionality Factor For each Technical proposal under consideration the FAA will evaluate the degree to which enhanced functionality and its approach to optional work proposed by an Offeror will enable the SAI program to better meet its objectives and provide additional useful functionality to airports.

Volume II Cost/Price Evaluation The FAA will evaluate proposed pricing of all CLINs for reasonableness, and review proposed pricing for balance, completeness, consistency, and traceability. 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 CLINsproposals 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. Such rejection may occur without any communication prior to contract award.

· Realism – The FAA reserves the right to perform price realism. If performed, theThe 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.

The FAA will verify that prices have been submitted for all requested Contract Line-Item Numbers (CLINs).

The FAA will use an FAA Evaluation Copy of the Price Model and the validation version of the Price Model to verify each Offeror’s computation of costs for the prices entered within their submitted Price Model. The FAA will verify submission by the Offeror by copying the prices submitted within the Offeror’s Price Model to the validation version to ensure consistency of evaluation.

Price Model and Total Evaluated Price

The FAA will evaluate the Offeror’s price proposals using Price Model and additional supporting documentation submitted by the Offeror. In evaluating offers for source selection, the FAA will use a Total Evaluated Price (TEP), which includes a work order scope across a period of performance (base and options). The evaluation of options does not obligate the FAA to exercise the option(s). Therefore, the TEP will be the sum of the proposed prices for the selected Firm Fixed Price CLINs.

T&M rates will be evaluated for reasonableness, but not included in the TEP.

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 Price Realism, Price Reasonableness, and if needed Price Balance. The FAA may consider the risk associated with the prices proposed by each Offeror including but not limited to different durations of service.

Cost/Price Assumptions, Deviations, and Contingencies The FAA reserves the right to reject any exceptions, deviations, or assumptions made. The FAA reserves the right to deem a statement that contradicts a SIR requirement as an exception or deviation, regardless of whether the Offeror identifies it as such, and to do so without any communication with the Offeror prior to contract award.

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 J.x). The FAA will consider the areas identified in Section M.6.3.1 and use the ratings as identified in Table 4, Past Performance Rating Descriptions, to rate the Past Performance volume.

The FAA 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.

The FAA reserves the right to consider Past Performance data from other sources, including but not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and/or Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The FAA’s use of Past Performance data from other sources for one or more Offerors does not obligate the FAA to seek out or use Past Performance data from other sources for other Offerors. The FAA may consider Past Performance data from an Offerors performance under the SAI program at other airports. The FAA may give more weight to SAI Service Past Performance.

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 6 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 FAA will review and assess the customer satisfaction questionnaires for consistency with information provided by the offeror and for independent assessment of the offeror’s 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 SAI 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 and weaknesses noted for each of the past performance examples and using the criteria stated in Table 4.

Past Performance Evaluation Criteria The following areas will be considered in the evaluation:

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. In the event the FAA does not receive three Past Performance Surveys from an Offeror, 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.

Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Table 4: Past Performance Rating Definitions

Small Business Utilization The FAA will evaluate the Small Business volume submitted by Offerors other than small businesses to assess the extent to which the Offeror meets or exceeds the subcontracting goals stated in Section L and AMS content requirements.

For Offerors that qualify as large business for the NAICS code associated with this SIR (518210), the FAA will evaluate each Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan as either Acceptable or Unacceptable using Table 5.

The FAA will consider the methodology used to incorporate small business, percentages, performance incentives, evidence of corporate commitment, and the extent to which small businesses are included in areas of performance that are integral to the requirements of the Statement of Work. Small business participation will be evaluated using the Subcontracting Plan.

Table 5: Small Buinsess Goal Rating Definitions

Definitions

Table 6: Definition of Terms