693KA8-24-DRAFTSIR-INVERSE_Section M Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

INVERSE DRAFT SIR 639KA8-24-R-XXXXX

M-1

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 AMS CLAUSES AND PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

AMS 3.1-1 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 (CO) will make the full text available, or offerors and contractors may obtain the full text via Internet at: https://fast.faa.gov/contractclauses.cfm.

Clause Number Clause Title

3.2.2.3-34 Evaluating Offers for Multiple Awards (Apr-2023)

3.2.4-31 Evaluation of Options (Apr-1996)

3.3.1-30 Progress Payments Not Included (Nov-1997)

M.2 ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARD

To be eligible for award, the prospective contractor must be determined to be responsible in accordance with Acquisition Management Policy 3.2.2.2, i.e.:

• Has or can obtain adequate financial resources to perform a contract;

• Has the ability to meet any required or proposed delivery schedules;

• Has a satisfactory performance history;

• Has a satisfactory record of integrity and proper business ethics;

• Has appropriate accounting and operational controls that may include, but are not limited to: production control, property control systems, quality assurance programs, and appropriate safety programs; and

• Is qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws or regulations.

To be eligible for award, proposals must be submitted in accordance with Section L, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors, and must conform to all the terms and conditions of the

SIR. Submittals must be complete, accurate, and contain the offeror’s best cost/price and technical terms. Offerors may be found ineligible for award if their proposals fail to conform to all terms and conditions of the SIR. However, the Government 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 Government to do so.

Proposals that fail to meet the requirements of the SIR or are unrealistic in terms of technical content or schedule commitments may result in the offeror being assessed as lacking technical competence or failing to comprehend the technical complexity and risks of the contract requirements. Therefore, the Government reserves the right to determine such proposals to be ineligible for further evaluation and for contract award.

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

M-2

For Offerors that identify conflicts of interest and submit a mitigation plan, the FAA will evaluate whether the plan proposed adequately mitigates the risks outlined in AMS 3.1.7-4

Organizational Conflict of Interest - Mitigation Plan Required, which is incorporated into

Section I of this SIR.

If the FAA determines a likely awardee’s plan is inadequate, FAA will engage in communications with the Offeror and allow the Offeror to clarify or provide support for its approach to OCI mitigation plan or to revise its OCI Mitigation Plan. If after communications, the Contracting Officer determines that the OCI cannot be mitigated, the FAA reserves the right to determine that the offeror is ineligible for award.

If at any time during the evaluation process the Government concludes that an offeror is not likely to receive award, the Government may eliminate the offeror from further consideration for award. Any offeror eliminated from further consideration will be notified in writing by the CO.

M.3 BASIS FOR AWARD

The FAA will use the best value/trade-off methodology to select the successful Offeror(s). The best value/trade-off methodology examines the technical, management, and price factors described in Sections M.7 and M.8 (below) to determine which Offerors’ proposals represent the best value to the Government. Per Section M.8.2, Past Performance will be evaluated solely as part of the responsibility determination to determine eligibility for award and will not be considered in best value determination. Only Offerors eligible for award as defined in Section

M.2 will be considered in the Best Value assessment.

“Best Value” describes the solution that is the most advantageous to the Government based on the evaluation factors and their order of importance, as defined in Section M.6. This approach provides the opportunity for a trade-off of between non-price and price factors. The Government may award to a higher technically rated, higher-priced Offeror if doing so is in the Government’s best interest. This approach does not require FAA to award to the Offeror(s) submitting the highest rated technical proposal or to the Offeror(s) submitting the lowest prices, although the ultimate award decision may be to either of these Offerors. The Government Source Evaluation

Team and the Source Selection Official (SSO) will strive for maximum objectivity; however, the source selection process is, by nature, subjective and judgment will be applied throughout the entire process.

M.4 NUMBER OF AWARDS

The Government intends to award one contract but reserves the right to award multiple contracts or no contract as a result of this SIR.

M.5 COMMUNICATIONS WITH OFFERORS

The FAA will conduct communications in accordance with AMS Policy Section 3.2.2.3.1.2.2.

The purpose of communications is to ensure mutual understanding between the FAA and offerors about all aspects of the procurement, including the offerors' submittals/proposals.

M-3

Communications with offerors may take place throughout the source selection process and through contract award, as necessary. All communications between the Government and

Offerors must be through the CO or individuals designated by the CO in writing.

The FAA reserves the right to conduct communications with any individual Offeror, or some, all, or no Offerors. Communications with one or more Offerors do not necessitate communications with other Offerors. Since the Government may award a contract without communications, Offerors are advised that their initial proposals should contain the best terms they intend to offer.

The FAA may consider any information in an Offeror’s responses to communications in the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal, and Offeror responses may serve as the basis for Strengths, Weaknesses, and Risks. The Government reserves the right to allow Offerors to revise their proposals in response to communications. Communications may necessitate changes in the

Government’s requirements or SIR. Where communications do not result in any changes in the

Government’s requirements or SIR, the Government is not required to request or accept offeror revisions.

M.6 EVALUATION ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

For evaluation purposes, Technical/Management factors are the most important, next in importance are Past Performance Factors, next in importance are the Price Factors and the least item of importance of the four sections is the Small Business Subcontracting Plan Factors.

M.7 EVALUATION APPROACH

The volumes of each offeror’s proposal will first be reviewed to determine whether they follow the instructions provided in Section L and include all the required information. Omission of information or proposals that do not fully conform to Section L requirements may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from award consideration.

The Government reserves the right to award a contract from the initial submissions without communications; therefore, offerors are cautioned that their initial proposals should contain the best terms they intend to offer.

The following subsections describe the evaluation approach for each of the evaluation factors:

• Technical/Management Factor

• Past Performance Factor

• Price Factor

• Small Business Subcontracting Plan Factor

M.7.1 TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Evaluators will identify strengths, weaknesses, and risks relative to the Technical/Management

Factor evaluation criteria defined in Section M.8.1. The definitions of strength, weakness, and risk are listed in Table 7.1-1. The Government will identify strengths, weaknesses, and risks on

M-4 the basis of information presented in the written proposal, offeror responses to communications, and oral and written content from the offeror’s Oral Presentation.

Table 7.1-1 Definitions of Strength, Weakness, and Risk

Strength An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has a positive impact on the probability of successful performance of the resulting contract.

Weakness An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has a negative impact on the probability of successful performance of the resulting contract.

Risk An aspect of an offeror's proposal that presents an uncertainty as to the ability of the offeror to successfully perform the resulting contract.

Based upon their assessment of the impact of all identified strengths, weaknesses, and risks, the evaluators will assign adjectival ratings to the associated element according to the Adjectival

Rating Definitions in Table 7.1-2.

Table 7.1-2 Adjectival Ratings for Technical/Management Factor Evaluation

Rating Description

Excellent

The offeror’s response to the topic is comprehensive and demonstrates a thorough understanding of the full range of requirements and work effort. Few, if any, areas for improvement can be cited. The combined impact of the strengths far outweighs the combined impact of the weaknesses if any.

Good

The offeror’s response to the topic is fully acceptable and appropriately responds to the full range of requirements and work effort. The combined impact of the strengths outweighs the combined impact of the weaknesses if any.

Satisfactory

The offeror’s response to the topic is appropriate and addresses adequately the full range of requirements and work effort.

Although there may be some weaknesses and areas in need of improvement, these are offset by strengths in other areas.

Marginal

The offeror’s response does not respond adequately to the full range of requirements and work efforts. Offeror’s response is deficient in several areas with no corresponding offset in other areas. The combined impact of the weaknesses outweighs the combined impact of the strengths.

Unsatisfactory

The offeror’s response to the topic is inadequate and does not demonstrate a satisfactory understanding of the requirements and work efforts. The proposal does not demonstrate the capability to support the Government’s needs. The combined impact of the weaknesses far outweighs the combined impact of the strengths.

M.7.2 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

The Government will evaluate each offeror’s Past Performance factors as defined in Section

M.8.2 and assign a confidence rating based on the definitions in Table 7.2-1. The confidence

M-5 rating represents the Government’s assessment of the likelihood of an offeror’s successful performance under the INVERSE contract based on its record of Past Performance.

Table 7.2-1 Definition of Confidence Ratings

Rating Description Rating Criteria

High

Confidence

Based on the Government’s assessment of the offeror’s performance record, there is a high level of confidence that the offeror will be able to successfully provide the services required under the INVERSE contract. Little or no

Government intervention is likely to be required for the offeror to achieve a satisfactory level of performance.

Less than two (2) elements across all survey responses rated as

“Marginal” or “Unsatisfactory”

Sufficient

Confidence

Based on the Government’s assessment of the offeror’s performance record, there is a moderate level of confidence that the offeror will be able to successfully provide the services required under the INVERSE contract. Some Government intervention may be required for the Contractor to achieve a satisfactory level of performance.

Two (2) to four (4) elements across all survey responses rated as “Marginal” or “Unsatisfactory”

Low

Confidence

Based on the Government’s assessment of the offeror’s performance record, there is low level of confidence that the offeror will be able to successfully provide the services required under the INVERSE contract. Significant

Government intervention is likely to be required for the

Contractors to achieve a satisfactory level of performance.

More than four (4) elements across all survey responses rated as “Marginal” or “Unsatisfactory”

M.7.3 PRICE EVALUATION

The Government will evaluate Volume III (Price Proposal) in terms of the Total Evaluated Price

(TEP) found in attachment L-2 Price Evaluation Tool (PET) and a Price Risk Rating, as defined in Table 7.3-1. The Price Risk Rating will be based upon an assessment of the Price Proposal in terms of Reasonableness, Realism, Balance, and Technical Consistency.

Table 7.3-1 Definitions of Price Risk Ratings

Price Risk Rating Definitions

Low Few, if any, concerns are identified with Reasonableness, Realism, Balance, and Technical Consistency affecting less than 10% of the offeror’s TEP.

Moderate Concerns are identified with Reasonableness, Realism, Balance, and Technical Consistency affecting between 10%-

25% of the offeror’s TEP.

High Concerns are identified with Reasonableness, Realism, Balance, and Technical Consistency affecting more than 25% of the offeror’s TEP.

The TEP, and all sensitivity analyses will be based upon the Present Value of each amount. The

Present Value will be calculated across the entire contract period of performance based upon the current Nominal Discount Rate, as defined in the most recently updated Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-94, Appendix C. Within the PET, offerors will be able to see the then-year dollar amounts and the corresponding Present Values that sum to the TEP

M-6

M.7.4 SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN FACTOR EVALUATION

The Government will evaluate each offeror’s strategy for utilizing Small, Small Disadvantaged, Women-Owned, and Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business concerns, as well as its consistency with their proposed Small Business Subcontract Management Approach. The

Government will evaluate whether the offeror’s proposal meets socioeconomic goals as identified in the SIR. If the offeror’s proposal does not meet socioeconomic goals as identified in the SIR, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s rationale and approach to meet these socioeconomic goals as the contract proceeds. An adjectival rating, per the definitions in Table

7.4-1, will be assigned to each offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Table 7.4-1 Definitions of Small Business Subcontracting Adjectival Ratings

Rating Definition

Acceptable

The offeror’s response demonstrates a viable small business subcontracting plan that meets the specified subcontracting goals and the AMS content requirements.

Unacceptable

The offeror’s response does not demonstrate a viable small business subcontracting plan that meets the specified subcontracting goals or the AMS content requirements.

M.8 EVALUATION CRITERIA

M.8.1 VOLUME I: TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT FACTOR EVALUATION

Sub-factor 1: System Capabilities

• Degree to which the system can effectively import Government-furnished data.

• Degree to which the offeror proposes a detailed and realistic schedule for achieving the target date for meeting the Full Operational Capability as defined in Section F.4.

• Degree to which the system, concept of operations, and processes are well-integrated.

• Degree to which the system meets or exceeds the requirements in the INVERSE

Functional and Performance Specification (Attachment J-1).

• Degree to which additional features and capabilities are proposed which provide value or benefit to the FAA.

Sub-factor 2: Invoice Review and Reconciliation

• Degree to which the proposed Invoice Review and Reconciliation methodology will ensure timely and accurate processing of FAA telecommunications service order and invoice data.

• Degree to which the proposed Invoice Review and Reconciliation methodology will effectively validate all charges, credits, and adjustment on FAA telecommunications invoices.

M-7

• Degree to which the proposed Invoice Review and Reconciliation methodology will identify the full range of invoicing discrepancies listed in Section C.4.4 in the INVERSE

Functional and Performance Specification (Attachment J-1).

• Degree to which the proposed Invoice Review and Reconciliation methodology will be effective in resolving invoice discrepancies in an automated fashion.

Sub-factor 3: Expensing and Payment

• Degree to which the proposed Expensing and Payment methodology will ensure timely and accurate expensing of FAA telecommunications invoice charges to the appropriate funding sources.

• Degree to which the proposed Expensing and Payment methodology will ensure expensing and payment of FAA telecommunications invoice charges in accordance with

FAA-specific business rules defined in SIR Attachment J-4.

• Degree to which the proposed Expensing and Payment methodology will provide visibility into expiring funds relative to the time limits on the obligation and expensing authority.

• Degree to which the proposed Expensing and Payment methodology will provide a fully automated approach with minimal manual intervention.

Sub-factor 4: Budget Forecasting, Tracking, and Financial Analysis

• Degree to which the offeror demonstrates the ability to assimilate budget and accounting information, reconcile accounts expensed with accounts obligated, and perform budget tracking and analysis functions.

• Degree to which the offeror proposes a sound and effective processes for budget forecasting and tracking.

• Degree to which the offeror proposes effective processes to performing financial analyses within the scope of SOW C.4.1.4 when requested by the FAA.

Sub-factor 5: User Portal

• Degree to which the proposed INVERSE User Portal meets or exceeds the requirements in Section 5 in the INVERSE Functional and Performance Specification (Attachment J-

1).

• Degree to which the proposed INVERSE User Portal complies with applicable Human

Factors requirements defined in Section 5.2 in the INVERSE Functional and Performance

Specification (Attachment J-1).

• Degree to which the INVERSE User Portal enables users to obtain predefined reports with the required contents and an intuitive format.

• Degree to which the INVERSE User Portal provides an intuitive user interface that enables users to analyze invoice and expensing data and generate ad hoc reports in a timely manner.

Sub-factor 6: Program Management

M-8

• Degree to which the offeror’s proposed program management approach including methodologies, corporate best practices, and supporting tools will facilitate effective management and delivery of the required services identified in the INVERSE SOW.

• Degree to which the offeror's proposed staffing approach will ensure the availability of the required critical skills and sufficient resources for the management and delivery of the required services identified in the INVERSE SOW.

• Degree to which the offeror’s proposed Program Management approach will facilitate an open dialogue with the FAA and ensure FAA visibility and awareness into INVERSE program status and issues.

• Degree to which the offeror proposed organizational structure will ensure appropriate access to its executive management.

• Degree to which the offeror's proposed organization structure will facilitate effective engagement with the FAA Program Office.

• Degree to which the proposed Key Personnel meet or exceed the required qualifications and experience specified in Section H.2.

Sub-factor 7: Security

• Degree to which the proposed information security architecture complies with the requirements in Section 3.2 and Section 5.5 of the INVERSE Functional and

Performance Specification (Attachment J-1) and the INVERSE Tailored Security

Controls (Attachment J-5).

• Degree to which the proposed information security management approach complies with the requirements Section 3.2 and Section 5.5 of the INVERSE Functional and

Performance Specification (Attachment J-1) and the INVERSE Tailored Security

Controls (Attachment J-5).

M.8.2 VOLUME II: PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR EVALUATION

The Past Performance Factor evaluation assesses how well the offerors are expected to perform the proposed effort based on their actual accomplishments on similar efforts. The rating of the

Past Performance Factor represents an assessment of the degree to which the offeror's past performance increases or decreases the confidence that they will be able to successfully perform a resulting INVERSE contract.

M.8.2.1 Inputs

The inputs to the Past Performance evaluation are:

1. Past Performance Summaries submitted by the offerors;

2. Customer responses to the Past Performance Questionnaire;

3. Supplemental Past Performance Information collected by the Government at the discretion of the CO.

Supplemental Past Performance Information may consist of:

M-9

• Past Performance information from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting

System (CPARS);

• Past Performance information provided by FAA personnel who have first-hand knowledge of an offeror’s performance on other FAA contracts.

For a Past Performance Reference to be considered, it must meet the Pre-conditions and

Applicability criteria defined in Section M.8.2.3

M.8.2.2 Customer Responses to Past Performance Surveys

The Past Performance Survey consists of a series of questions related to specific areas of interest relevant to the performance of the INVERSE contract. The survey provides an adjectival rating scale of Unsatisfactory through Excellent defined in Table 7.1-2 for responding to each question.

Per the instructions on the Past Performance Survey Form, customer points of contact are requested to:

• Indicate if particular questions are “Not Applicable;” and

• Provide a narrative explanation that discusses any adjectival ratings of Marginal or

Unsatisfactory.

The purpose of the narrative explanation is to substantiate the adjectival rating and support the

Government’s determination as to whether any follow-up with the customer point of contact is warranted; it may be considered by the Government when assigning the factor rating.

The Government reserves the right to make an award to an offeror whose past performance submission does not include the requested number of Past Performance Surveys. Conversely, the

Government reserves the right at any point during the evaluation to eliminate any offeror from further consideration if its past performance submission does not include the requested number of Past Performance Surveys.

M.8.2.3 Pre-conditions and Applicability Criteria

Past Performance References selected by the offeror (as described by the Past Performance summaries submitted by the offeror) and any Supplemental Past Performance Information collected by the Government are subject to the following Pre-conditions and Applicability

Criteria:

Pre-condition 1 – Relevance

The Past Performance Reference submitted by the offeror must be assessed by the Government as being comparable to FCT in terms of the functional scope, number of sites, and representative of the offeror’s capability, experience, and performance relative to the FCT SOW requirements.

Pre-condition 2 – Recency

The Past Performance Reference submitted by the offeror must have been performed within five years of the date of the proposal submission.

Applicability Criteria:

M-10

• At least one Past Performance Reference must correspond to work performed by the

Prime offeror; and

• Any Past Performance References not attributable to the prime offeror must have been performed by a team member that qualifies as a major subcontractor – defined as a subcontractor that will be performing at least 10% of the effort (in terms of dollar value) under this contract.

The Government will notify an offeror through a Communications Item if there are concerns as to whether a Past Performance Reference is both Relevant and Recent, as defined above, and whether the Past Performance References meet the Applicability Criteria. If the offeror does not satisfactorily address the concerns noted in the Communications Item, the Government may assess a Past Performance Reference as not meeting both Pre-conditions, or whether individually or collectively, the Past Performance References do not meet one or more of the Applicability

Criteria. When this occurs, the Government will not evaluate responses to Past Performance surveys concerning that work.

M.8.3 VOLUME III: PRICE FACTOR EVALUATION

The evaluation of the Price Factor will be based on each offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (as defined in Section M.8.3.1 and a Price Risk Rating as defined in Table 7.3-1(The Total

Evaluated Price (TEP) and the Price Risk Rating for each offeror are separate outputs of the

Price Evaluation, they are of equal importance, and both will be considered by the Government in its Best Value trade-off analysis. To be eligible for award, an offeror’s Total Evaluated Price must be determined by the Government to be Fair and Reasonable per AMS Policy T3.2.3.

M.8.3.1 Total Evaluated Price

The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) is calculated based upon the offeror’s inputs to the

Government-furnished PET Model Attachment L-3 and described in M.7.3.

M.8.3.2 Price Risk Evaluation

The evaluation of Price Risk represents the Government’s assessment of the uncertainty as to the likelihood that the offeror’s proposed solution or approach will result in higher costs to the

Government than indicated by an offeror’s TEP upon execution of the contract. The term proposed prices refer to prices and percentages found in Section B, Tables B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4 and Attachment L-3 INVERSE Pet Model. The following sub-factors will be considered within the assessment of the Risk associated with each offeror’s Price Proposal. All sub-factors are of equal importance.

• Reasonableness: To ensure prices are reasonable, the Government will perform, as applicable, a price and/or cost analysis in accordance with the criteria set forth in AMS

Policy T.3.2.3 of all CLIN proposed prices.

• Realism: The purpose of the realism analysis is to ensure that proposed prices are not so low that contract performance would be put at risk from either a technical and/or cost

M-11 perspective. The Government will perform a price realism analysis as applicable to ensure realistic prices in accordance with the criteria set forth in AMS T.3.2.3.

• Balance: The Government will analyze proposals using cost or price analysis as applicable to determine whether they are unbalanced, in accordance with criteria set forth in AMS T.3.2.3, with respect to proposed prices or separately priced line items. An offer is mathematically unbalanced if it is based on proposed prices which are significantly less than the cost of some contract line items and significantly overstated in relation to price for others. An offer is materially unbalanced if it is mathematically unbalanced and if there is reasonable doubt that the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to FAA

(even though it is the lowest evaluated offer); or the offer is so grossly unbalanced that its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advance payment. Offers that are materially unbalanced may be rejected. The Government does recognize based on the

CLIN structure that contractors my choose to bid a low or $0 development cost if they already have commercial software and associated licensing fees as part of the TEP.

• Technical Consistency: The Government will assess the consistency of the Price

Proposal with the technical solutions and approaches described in the

Technical/Management Proposal. This assessment will be based upon a comparison of the BOEs submitted with the Price Proposal and other relevant information to the

Technical/Management Proposal. A greater degree of inconsistency may be assessed as representing more risk within an offer per the definitions in Table 7.3-1.

• Price Sensitivity: The Government will assess the sensitivity of each Offeror’s TEP to variations in the number of services invoiced. A greater degree of sensitivity may be assessed as representing more risk within an offer per the definitions in Table 7.3-1.

The Price Evaluation Team will assign an overall price risk rating based on the extent of issues identified relative to these five subfactors, per the definitions in Table 7.3-1.

M.8.4 VOLUME IV: SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN FACTOR EVALUATION

The FAA will evaluate whether the offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan is compliant with FAA AMS Clause 3.6.1-4 as well as the goals set forth in Section L.12.5. As part of this evaluation, the Government will assess whether the offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting

Plan demonstrates that the subcontracting goals apply over the full life of the contract, including the base period and each exercised option period. The Government will rate the Small Business

Subcontracting Plan based on the ratings defined in Table 7.4-1. Any non-small business offeror that fails to submit an acceptable subcontracting plan or to correct deficiencies within the time specified by the CO may be ineligible for award.