693KA8-21-R-00008 SIR Section M.pdf

693KA8-21-R-00008

PART IV - SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1

M.1 Provisions Incorporated by Reference This screening information request (SIR) incorporates by reference the provisions listed below with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. You may obtain the full text at http://conwrite.faa.gov.

Clause Title 3.2.4-31 Evaluation of Options (April 1996) 3.3.1-30 Progress Payments Not Included (November 1997)

M.2 Information and Considerations Affecting Vendor Proposal Submissions

(a) This acquisition will employ best practices and procedures for negotiated procurements as authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration Acquisition Management System (AMS).

(b) Your offer will be screened initially to determine if it is in compliance with the Screening Information Request (SIR) procurement response instructions described in Section L. This Section M provides the criteria by which your proposal will be evaluated.

(c) Your proposal will be evaluated on the basis of its written submissions and price information described in Section L. Separate technical and price proposals are required as described in Section L.

(d) Your offer will be subjected to a detailed evaluation by the Source Selection Evaluation Team

(SSET).

(1) Volume 1, Offer, Other Documents, and Pricing. Your price proposal will be evaluated in accordance with SIR Section M.5 and the Price Evaluation.

(2) Volume 2, Technical and Past Performance, will be subjected to a detailed evaluation by the Technical Evaluation Team (TET) that will rate your proposal in accordance with Section M.6 Technical Evaluation.

(e) Your Technical proposal will be evaluated and rated in accordance with pre-established evaluation factors. These factors are listed in M.6.

(f) At this time, a consolidated PET and TET team will evaluate Best Value as indicated in M.3 below.

(g) If your offer provides the overall best value to the FAA, your offer will be selected for award.

The Government will evaluate Price and Technical and Past Performance. If total factor ratings are close together, price will become more important.

(h) Because several proposals are anticipated, uniformity of proposals is essential to assure a fair and accurate assessment of each offer. All proposals must be submitted in accordance with Section L and must conform to all the terms and conditions of the SIR. Failure to conform to all requirements http://conwrite.faa.gov/

M-2 expressed may be cause for rejection without further evaluation or discussion.

(i) Additional information may be requested from the Offeror whose proposal the FAA considers to represent the overall best value. The information may clarify or supplement, but not make any cardinal changes to, the proposal as submitted. The FAA reserves the right to award a contract based on initial offers received, without discussions or negotiations. For this reason, each initial offer must be submitted on the most favorable terms from the standpoint of technical approach and price.

(j) In accordance with clause 3.2.2.3-19 of this SIR, the FAA reserves the right to limit Offerors participating in the competition to only those most likely to receive a contract award.

M.3 Basis for Award This acquisition will employ best practices and procedures for negotiated procurements as authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration Acquisition Management System (AMS). A “Best Value” approach will be used as the basis for selecting an Offeror for award. The Best Value approach is a source selection method based on identifying the offer representing the greatest value to the Government as determined by the combined outcomes of the individual volume ratings and their relative level of importance as defined in Section M.

Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is judged to represent the Best Value to the Government. The Best Value decision will be based on the evaluation of each Offeror’s proposal submitted in accordance with Section L and evaluated in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section M. Best Value represents the solution that is the most advantageous to the Government based on the evaluation of Price and Technical and Past Performance Volumes based on the criteria set forth in Section M. It does not require that an award be made to either the Offeror submitting the highest rated technical solution or to the Offeror submitting the lowest price; i.e., the proposal with the lowest total evaluated price may not be judged to represent the Best Value to the Government.

The Government will perform a trade-off analysis between the Price and Technical and Past Performance evaluation results to arrive at the Best Value decision. The source selection process is by nature subjective and the Government Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) and the Source Selection Official (SSO) will apply their professional judgment throughout the entire source selection process. 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.

The Government anticipates awarding one contract resulting from this solicitation. Should it decide to do so, the Government reserves the right to make multiple awards or to not make an award from this solicitation.

Offerors are advised that the Government reserves the right to make an award based on initial proposals received, without communications. Offerors must not assume that they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss, or revise their proposal. Offerors are instructed to submit proposals with their most favorable price and non-price terms.

M-3

M.4 Evaluation Process The following sections describe the process by which the Government will evaluate proposals. The Government will exercise judgment in evaluating all information collected.

M.4.1 Compliance Review

Each volume of the Offeror’s proposal will first be reviewed by the Contracting Officer to determine whether it satisfies the requirements of Section L and includes all the required information. Proposals that omit required information or do not fully conform to Section L requirements may be found ineligible for award.

M.4.2 Offer Communications, Deviations and Waivers The Government may communicate with Offerors orally or in writing during the course of the evaluation. The Government reserves the right to communicate with one, some, or no Offerors at all. Communications with one Offeror do not necessitate communications with any other Offeror.

Offeror-proposed deviations and waivers will not be evaluated separately from the proposal.

See Table M-1 in paragraph M.7 Evaluation Definitions. The Government will review any proposed deviations and waivers and determine which are acceptable to the Government and which are not. If a deviation or waiver is accepted, it will be evaluated as part of the proposal.

If the Government does not accept a deviation or waiver, that portion will not be evaluated as part of the proposal. If the Government accepts a deviation or waiver, the Offeror may receive a strength, weakness, or risk for that deviation or waiver. The acceptance or rejection of a deviation or waiver is not automatically considered a strength, weakness, or risk.

The Government reserves the right to reject any request for any exceptions, deviations, or assumptions. 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.4.3 Technical Factor Order of Importance

This SIR uses a Best Value proposal evaluation process. The Technical and Past Performance Factors (Volume 2) are more important than the Price (Volume 1). The Technical and Past Performance Factors are ranked in in the following, descending order of importance: Factor A is more important that Factors C, B, D and E. Factor C is more important that Factors B, D and E. Factor B is more important than Factors D and E. Factor D is more important than Factor E. To summarize in an equation: Factor A > Factor C > Factor B > Factor D > Factor E.

M.4.4 Summary of Overall Evaluation Process

(a) Proposal Price and Technical and Past Performance Factors are evaluated as set forth herein. The Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET), a combined team consisting of both Price Evaluation Team (PET) and Technical Evaluation Team (TET) members, will consider

M-4 tradeoffs between technical factors and price, keeping in mind that non-price factors are more important than price in determining the overall Best Value to the FAA.

(b) Technical and Past Performance (Volume 2) factors will be reviewed by the TET in order to determine whether the minimum requirements of the Statement of Work (SOW) have been met.

Technical and Past Technical Performance proposals that have been evaluated to meet the minimum requirements as identified in the SOW will then be further evaluated and rated according to their ability to exceed the requirements identified in the SOW and the evaluation factors listed in Section M.6 (Technical and Past Performance). Technical and Past Performance ratings are then ranked in preparation for a Best Value determination. Technical and Past Performance Evaluations/Proposals that have been evaluated and determined to not meet the minimum requirements as identified in the SOW will be eliminated from further consideration.

(c) Risk Assessment. The Government will assess the risk associated with conducting business with each Offeror in accordance with M-9 below. This risk assessment will be completed after the technical evaluation. The risk assessment will be used to help determine the best value for the government.

(d) Price Evaluation. The Price Evaluation Team (PET) will evaluate offers in accordance with M.5 below.

(e) Best Value Determination. Using the results from the TET and the PET, the SSO will select for award the offer that provides the greatest overall value to the FAA. If a tradeoff between technical and price is made, the lowest total evaluated price offer may not provide the greatest overall value to the Government.

(f) To be eligible for award, the Offeror must be determined to be financially viable and found to be responsible by the Contracting Officer (CO) prior to the award of any resultant contract.

M.5 Volume 1 – Price Evaluation

The Government will evaluate proposed pricing for all Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) for reasonableness, and review proposed pricing for completeness, consistency, and traceability. The Government reserves the right to perform price realism, if deemed necessary in accordance with AMS Guidance T3.2.3, Cost and Price Methodology. If necessary, the Government reserves the right to request additional cost or pricing data to perform cost analysis.

• 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.

M-5

• Completeness/Consistency/Traceability - The FAA will review your price proposal to determine whether it includes all required pricing information 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.

Total Evaluated Price Using the populated Section B, submitted by the Offeror, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Price proposal to determine the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). In evaluating offers for source selection, the FAA will use the TEP which includes base and option periods. The evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). The TEP will be equal to the sum of:

• The sum of the total dollar amount for all the contract line item numbers (CLINs) entered into Section B.

In the event that a realism analysis is conducted and if the FAA determines the proposed price to be unrealistically low, the proposal may be eliminated on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirements or has developed and submitted an impracticable and/or unsubstantiated proposal.

M.6 Volume 2 – Technical Evaluation

The evaluation factors listed below are intended to determine the offerors' capabilities to effectively and efficiently provide INet Building Automation System (BAS) virtual and onsite FAA facility training workshops for FAA personnel.

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s Technical Volume on a best value basis in accordance with the Evaluation Factors and Evaluation Criteria in M.6.

Technical and Past Performance Evaluation Factors and Evaluation Criteria

Factor A: The contractor’s ability to provide all four of the requested INet training types as listed in the SOW within the requested period of performance.

a. Outstanding if contractor can provide the four (4) training requests.

b. Excellent if contractor can provide three (3) training requests.

c. Good if contractor can provide two (2) of the training requests.

d. Satisfactory if contractor can provide the Virtual training request.

e. Unsatisfactory if contractor cannot provide the Virtual training request.

M-6

Factor B: The contractor’s past performance providing BAS INet training to FAA personnel and or other government agencies of equal size and scope. Contractor must provide a list of previously trained BAS INet courses.

a. Outstanding if they have past experience training the BAS INet systems at FAA facilities.

b. Excellent if they have past experience training BAS INet at facilities other than FAA government facilities.

c. Unsatisfactory if they do not have experience in training BAS INet.

Factor C: The contractor’s Courses are broken into four (4) separate curriculums.

Contractor must provide a course syllabus and a summary for each of the curriculums below:

a. Outstanding if four (4) separate courses

i. Virtual Fundamentals

ii. Enhanced Operation and Maintenance

iii. Advanced Service and Repair

iv. FAA facility site specific BAS INet workshop

b. Excellent if three (3) separate courses

i. Virtual Fundamentals

ii. Enhanced Operation and Maintenance

iii. FAA facility site specific BAS INet workshop

c. Good if two (2) separate courses

i. Virtual Fundamentals

ii. FAA facility site specific BAS INet workshop

d. Satisfactory if one (1) course

i. Virtual Fundamentals

e. Unsatisfactory if no course

Factor D: The contractor’s ability to demonstrate understanding of the critical service the BAS INet provides FAA and/or other government facilities. Contractor must provide a list of past experience of working on/with FAA and or other government facilities.

a. Outstanding if they have past experience designing and installing BAS INet systems at FAA facilities.

M-7

b. Excellent if they have past experience designing and installing BAS INet systems at other than FAA government facilities.

c. Satisfactory if they have past experience designing or installing other BAS systems at FAA and or government facilities.

d. Unsatisfactory if they have no experience designing and installing BAS systems.

Factor E: Past Performance Evaluation for Relevancy and for FAA Confidence

Past Performance must be either as a Prime or Sub-Contractor and must be recent. For the purpose of this proposal evaluation, recent is defined as performed in the last five (5) years and may include active (on which the Offeror has performed for at least one (1) year) and inactive contracts. The Offeror’s Past performance will be evaluated based on the completed Section L attachments that are similar in scope and complexity to this SIR. The contracts selected by the Offeror must demonstrate that the Offeror has an understanding of the work to be performed under this SIR.

The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated relevant record of performance in meeting the contract requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each Offeror after evaluating the Offeror’s past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. First, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant an effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through this SIR.

Relevancy is defined as those contracts of similar scope, and complexity under similar conditions which consider those aspects of an Offeror’s contract history that would provide the greatest ability to measure whether the Offeror will satisfy this SIR.

a. Offeror’s past performance projects will be assessed as either “Relevant” or “Not Relevant” in accordance with the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings described in Table M-2 below.

b. The Government reserves the right to contact and verify past performance information with the references provided in the Past Performance Questionnaires, and to use any other past performance information available. Additionally, past performance data may be obtained through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), or similar systems, other Government departments and agencies, program managers, contracting officers, and other sources known to the Government (including commercial sources) including references other than those identified by the Offeror. Offerors will be given the opportunity to address any negative performance information resulting from the past performance assessment inquiries. If an Offeror responds to their negative past performance information, the Technical Evaluation Team will consider this response in their evaluation of the Offeror’s past performance.

M-8

c. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and will be rated “Neutral” for this Sub-Factor.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is a determination of how well the Offeror performed on the contracts. The Government will review the Offeror’s past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to its performance assessment.

In conducting a performance confidence assessment, the Government will assign one of the Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings specified in Table M-3 below.

M.7 Evaluation Definitions The definitions listed in Table M-1 below will be used when evaluating each Offeror’s proposal.

Table M-1

CATEGORY DESCRIPTION

Strength

An element of an Offeror's proposal which exceeds requirements and provides an especially good, innovative, or unique feature, or which provides value and benefit to the Government, such as improved performance.

Weakness An element in the Offeror's proposal that increases the likelihood of program failure or does not otherwise meet the requirements of this

SIR.

Deficiency An aspect of the proposal, such as a descriptive statement, or the lack of requested information, demonstrating that the proposal fails to meet the requirements of this solicitation.

Substantiated Competent, documented evidence that supports or otherwise verifies proposal claims, approaches, or contents.

Unsubstantiated Insufficient or no documented evidence is provided to substantiate proposal claims, approached, or contents.

M-9

M.8 Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Past performance will be evaluated using the following rating scales.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Table M-2

RATING DESCRIPTION

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same or similar scope of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Partially Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Neutral No record exists - neither favorably nor unfavorably.

Past Performance Confidence Assessment

Table M-3

RATING DESCRIPTION

Confidence Based on the Offeror's relevant performance record, the Government has a high or a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence

Based on the Offeror's relevant performance record, the Government has a limited expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

M-10

No

Confidence

Based on the Offeror's relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. Note: An offeror with a final rating of No Confidence may be found ineligible for award.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No relevant performance record is available or the Offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

M.9 Risk Assessment Definitions The definitions listed in Table M-4 below will be used when evaluating the risks of each Offeror’s proposal.

Table M-4

CATEGORY DESCRIPTION

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

Moderate

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

Low

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.

End of Section M The remainder of this page, intentionally left blank.