693KA8-24-R-00012 - Section M.pdf

693KA8-24-R-00012

PART IV – REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1

M.1 AMS CLAUSE 3.1-1 CLAUSES AND PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY

REFERENCE (JUL 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 Offeror’s and contractors may obtain the full text via Internet at: https://fast.faa.gov/contractclauses.cfm.

Table M-1: CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

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)

3.11-50 No Evaluation of Transportation Costs (Apr 1999)

M.2 GENERAL INFORMATION

This section of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Engine Generator Systems (EGS) Screening Information Request (SIR) describes the factors that will be used to evaluate offers submitted in response to this solicitation.

The Offeror’s attention is directed to the functional relationship between Sections L and M of this SIR. Section L provides information for the purpose of organizing the proposal and is not intended to be all-inclusive. Section M describes evaluation factors for award. Since the Government evaluation of proposals will cover all areas identified in Section M, proposals should address all such areas for evaluation.

M.3 BASIS FOR AWARD

This acquisition is being conducted in accordance with the FAA’s Acquisition Management System (AMS). Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is determined to represent the best value to the FAA. The best value determination will be based on the evaluation of each Offeror’s proposal in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section M. 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. The Best Value approach provides the opportunity for a trade-off between price/cost and non-price/non-cost factors and does not require that award be made to either the Offeror submitting the highest rated proposal nor to the Offeror submitting the lowest price, although award may be to either one of those Offerors.

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

M-2

While the Government will use objectivity to the maximum extent possible, the source selection process is, by nature, subjective and professional judgment will be applied throughout the process.

M.4 NUMBER OF POTENTIAL AWARDS

The FAA intends to select one Offeror for contract award. Should it decide to do so, the Government reserves the right to make multiple awards or to not make any award. The Government also reserves the right to deviate from this plan.

M.5 EVALUATION PROCESS

M.5.1 Overview

In evaluating the proposals, the Government reserves the right to conduct written or oral communications with any individual Offeror or all competing Offerors. Communications with one or more Offerors do not necessitate communications with other Offerors. The Government may communicate with Offerors orally or in writing during the evaluation.

The Government intends to evaluate each proposal and award a contract to the responsible Offeror whose offer represents the best value to the Government using the Tradeoff methodology as defined in Section M.3 above. Offerors are cautioned that their initial proposals should contain the Offeror’s best terms. Offerors must not assume that they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss, or revise their proposal. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure the completeness of the proposal. The evaluation of proposals will be conducted based on the information contained in the written proposal. The Government will not assume that an Offeror possesses any capabilities not specified in the written proposal.

M.5.2 Eliminating Proposals

The Government will evaluate Offeror responses to the SIR in accordance with the evaluation criteria for award described herein. Proposals that fail to meet the requirements of the solicitation or that are unrealistic in terms of technical content or schedule commitments may be deemed reflective of a lack of technical competence or indicative of a failure to comprehend the technical complexity and risks of the Government’s requirements. The Government, therefore, reserves the right to determine such proposals as ineligible for further evaluation and for contract award. The Government also reserves the right to (i) reject any and all offers, (ii) waive any requirement, and

(iii) accept minor irregularities and discrepancies if doing so is determined to be in the best interest of the FAA.

M-3

M.5.3 Phased Evaluation Approach

The following section describes the phased evaluation process. This SIR does not authorize alternate proposals and the FAA will not evaluate any alternate proposal received.

M.5.3.1 Phase I – Compliance Review

Each volume of the Offeror’s proposal will first be reviewed by the Contracting Officer (CO) to determine whether it complies with the requirements of Section L, includes all the required information, and is timely. Proposals that omit required information, do not fully conform to Section L requirements, or attempt to deviate from any requirement may be found ineligible for award.

The FAA may eliminate from further consideration for award any Offerors whose proposals do not fully meet SIR requirements. Any Offerors that are eliminated from further consideration will be notified of the FAA’s decision in writing.

M.5.3.2 Phase II – Final Assessment

Following the compliance review, the FAA will evaluate Volume II (Technical Approach), Volume III (Past Performance), and Volume IV (Price) from each remaining Offeror based on the evaluation process and criteria defined in Section M.

Proposed equipment which exceeds performance and characteristic specifications may be incorporated as contract requirements upon award.

M.6 COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING CONTRACT AWARD

No contractual obligation or liability on the part of the Government will exist until the contract is awarded. No Offeror should begin work on the services and other requirements called for by this SIR until a contract award has been made by the Government.

A written award or acceptance of offer communicated to the successful Offeror within the time for acceptance specified on the offer must result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer whether there are communications after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award. Communications conducted after receipt of an offer do not constitute a rejection nor a counteroffer by the Government.

M-4

M.7 RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATION

To be eligible for award, the prospective Contractor must be determined by the CO to be responsible in accordance with AMS Policy 3.2.2.2 and Procurement Guidance T3.2.2.7, Contractor Qualifications.

To assist in this determination, the Government will review information provided in the Offeror’s Proposal Documentation submitted in accordance with Section L.6.4 (Volume 1, Section 4 – Responsible Prospective Contractors).

Contract award will be made only to a Contractor determined by the CO to be responsible.

To assist in this determination, the Government will review information provided in the Offeror’s Volume I, Offer and Other Documents, submission. The FAA may rely on information from compliance and regulatory agencies and/or independent investigation to determine Offeror’s responsibility.

M.8 EVALUATION FACTORS

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

(1) Offer and Other Documents (Volume I) (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

a. Section 1 – Solicitation Cover page (SF 33)

b. Section 2 – Section I

c. Section 3 – Section K

d. Section 4 – Responsible Prospective Contractors

e. Section 5 – Subcontracting Plan (as applicable)

f. Section 6 – Mentor-Protégé Program (as applicable)

g. Section 7 – Teaming Arrangement/Joint Ventures (as applicable)

h. Section 8 – Organizational Conflict of Interest (as applicable)

(2) Technical Approach (Volume II) (Adjectivally Rated)

a. Factor 1 – Past Experience

i. Sub-Factor 1.1: Past Experience Matrix

ii. Sub-Factor 1.2: Past Experience Narratives

b. Factor 2 – Equipment Proposal

i. Sub-Factor 2.1: Manufacturer of Equipment

ii. Sub-Factor 2.2: EGS Performance Specifications

iii. Sub-Factor 2.3: EGS Equipment Characteristics

c. Factor 3 – Logistics Proposal

i. Sub-Factor 3.1: Software

ii. Sub-Factor 3.2: Maintenance

iii. Sub-Factor 3.3: Integrated Support Plan (ISP)

d. Factor 4 – Training Proposal

e. Factor 5 – Key Personnel

M-5

(3) Past Performance (Volume III) (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

(4) Price (Volume IV) (NOT RATED)

a. Part 1 – Price Schedule for CLINS X101 through X155 (base period and all options)

M.8.1 Volume And Evaluation Factors Order of Importance

M.8.1.1 Volume Order of Importance

Volume I (Offer and Other Documents) is rated as Acceptable/Unacceptable and is not part of the trade-off analysis. Volume III (Past Performance) is rated as Acceptable/Unacceptable and is not part of the trade-off analysis. Volume II (Technical Approach) is significantly more important than Volume IV (Price).

M.8.1.2 Factor Order of Importance (Volume II)

Within Volume II, Factor 1 (Past Experience) is the most important.

Factor 2 (Equipment Proposal) is more important than Factor 3 (Logistics Proposal), Factor 4 (Training Proposal) and Factor 5 (Key Personnel). Factor 3 (Logistics Proposal) is more important than Factor 4 (Training Proposal) and Factor 5 (Key Personnel).

Factor 4 (Training Proposal) is more important than Factor 5 (Key Personnel).

M.8.1.3 Sub-Factor Order of Importance (Volume II)

Within Volume II, Factor 1 (Past Experience), all sub-factors are of equal importance.

Within Volume II, Factor 2 (Equipment Proposal), all sub-factors are of equal importance.

Within Volume II, Factor 3 (Logistics Proposal), all sub-factors are of equal importance.

M.8.2 Government’s Best Value Trade-Off

For the Government’s Best Value trade-off, the overall rating of Volume II (Technical Approach) is significantly more important than the evaluation results of Volume IV (Price).

As the difference between Offerors in the Technical evaluation results decreases, the Price evaluation results will become more important. To the extent that two (2) or more Offerors are rated comparably in the Technical evaluation, the Price Factor becomes more significant.

M.9 PROPOSAL EVALUATION

M.9.1 Volume I - Offer and Other Documents (Volume I –– Acceptable/Unacceptable)

M-6

The FAA will evaluate submitted Volume I elements on an Unrated (Acceptable/Unacceptable) basis and perform additional reviews in accordance with AMS.

Table M-2: DEFINITIONS OF ACCEPTABLE and UNACCEPTABLE

Rating Definition

Acceptable The proposal section meets the requirements.

Unacceptable The proposal section does not meet one or more of the requirements.

M.9.2 Volume II – Technical Approach Evaluation

The FAA will review, analyze, and consider all information received in each proposal, which will include the written proposal content and any information received from written communication items, if issued.

Volume II will be evaluated using the factors and sub-factors listed below. Evaluators will identify strengths, weaknesses, and risks relative to the evaluation factors and sub-factors. The definitions of strength, weakness, and risk are listed in Table M-3.

Based upon the evaluation, evaluators will assign adjectival ratings to the associated factor or sub-factor. The range of adjectival ratings and their definitions are listed in Table M-4. For Factors 1, 2, and 3, the factor-level adjectival ratings will be based upon the adjectival ratings of the underlying sub-factors. For Factors 4 and 5 (which do not have any sub-factors), the adjectival ratings will be based upon the factor-level evaluation. An overall adjectival volume-level rating will be assigned to Volume II based on the factor-level ratings.

M.9.2.1 Definitions Used in The Evaluation of Volume II

The following definitions will be used in evaluation of Factors 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 within Volume II (Technical Approach).

Table M-3: DEFINITIONS OF STRENGTH, WEAKNESS, AND RISK

Term Definition

Strength An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

M-7

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Risk An aspect of an Offeror's proposal that, when assessed as to its probability of occurrence and the magnitude of its impact, presents an uncertainty as to the ability of the Offeror to successfully perform the resulting contract.

M.9.2.2 Adjectival Ratings Used in the Evaluation of Volume II

The following adjectival ratings listed in Table M-4 will be used when evaluating Volume II.

Table M-4 – VOLUME II ADJECTIVAL RATING DEFINITIONS

Rating Definition Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths. The impact of the strengths far outweighs the impact of any weaknesses and risks.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. The impact of the strengths outweighs the impact of any weaknesses and risks.

Satisfactory

Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The impact of any strengths is approximately equal to the impact of any weaknesses and risks.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. One or more weaknesses exist which are not offset by strengths.

Contract performance is anticipated with high risk.

Unsatisfactory Proposal does not meet requirements and/or contains many weaknesses or omissions creating an unacceptable risk. Proposal is ineligible for award.

M.9.2.3 Evaluation Criteria for Volume II

M.9.2.3.1 Evaluation Criteria for Volume II - Factor 1 (Past Experience)

M.9.2.3.1.1 Sub-Factor 1.1: Past Experience Matrix

The FAA will evaluate:

a) The degree to which the proposed team members – prime contractor and/or subcontractors – have recent experience as defined in Table M-5 in all the identified areas of the experience matrix of L.7.1.1

M-8

b) The degree to which the proposed team members – prime contractor and/or subcontractors – have demonstrated relevant experience in all the identified areas of the experience matrix of L.7.1.1

M.9.2.3.1.2 Sub-Factor 1.2: Past Experience Narratives

The FAA will evaluate:

a) The degree to which the past experience is comparable to the anticipated EGS Contract in terms of size, scope, and complexity.

b) The degree to which the past experience demonstrates the Offeror’s capability, experience, and performance relative to the SOW requirements.

M.9.2.3.2 Evaluation Criteria for Volume II - Factor 2 (Equipment Proposal)

M.9.2.3.2.1 Sub-Factor 2.1: Manufacturer of Equipment

The FAA will evaluate:

a) The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates an outline of their manufacturing process as identified in the SOW.

b) The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates they manufacture the equipment identified in SOW Section C.3.3, Commercial Off-The Shelf (COTS) Equipment, and Attachment J.01, EGS Specification.

M.9.2.3.2.2 Sub-Factor 2.2: EGS Performance Specifications

a) The degree to which the Offeror provides information that demonstrates the proposed EGS equipment will support the specification requirements below as related to CLINS X101 through X122, X138, X140, X141 X143, X148, X149 and X150 specifically:

i. Engine Generator System (EGS) Functional and Performance Characteristics (EGS Spec Sections 200)

ii. Engine Generator Parameters (EGS Spec Section 102)

iii. Quality Assurance and Certification (EGS Spec Section 103)

iv. First Article Test (EGS Spec Section 300)

v. EGS Startup Service (EGS SOW C.3.3.9)

b) The degree to which the Offeror submits an Attachment J.08, EGS Performance

Specifications and the Offeror: “C” Complies with no exceptions, “D” Complies with deviations, “E” Exception, does not comply, or “S”: Surpasses to the Specification as it relates to Attachment J.01, EGS Specifications.

M-9

M.9.2.3.2.3 Sub-Factor 2.3: EGS Equipment Characteristics

The FAA will evaluate:

a) The degree to which the Offeror submits information that demonstrates the proposed EGS equipment will support the specification requirements below as related to CLINS X101 through X123, X138, X140, X141, X143, X148, X149 and X150.

i. General Requirements (EGS Spec Section 201)

ii. EG Characteristics (EGS Spec Sections 200-204, 213-215)

iii. Automatic Transfer Switch (ATS) (EGS Spec Sections 205-209)

iv. Load bank (EGS Spec Section 210)

v. Remote Radiator (EGS Spec Section 211)

vi. Day tank (EGS Spec Section 212)

b) The degree to which the Offeror submits a complete Attachment J.09, EGS Equipment Characteristics and the Offeror: “C” Complies with no exceptions, “D” Complies with deviations or “E” Exception, does not comply, or “S”: Surpasses to the Specification as it relates to Attachment J.01, EGS Specification.

M.9.2.3.3 Evaluation Criteria for Volume II - Factor 3 (Logistics Proposal)

M.9.2.3.3.1 Sub-Factor 3.1: Software

The FAA will evaluate:

a) The degree to which the Offeror identifies all software and firmware, including third party applications or operating systems if required.

b) The degree to which the Offeror provides unrestricted access to all software/firmware, and all data rights.

c) The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates the ability that the proposed software and firmware can be reproduced, copied, altered, used, and modified.

d) The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates the vendor policy approach to the management of software changes and distribution of those changes that effect deployed EGS equipment. See SOW Section C.3.3.2, Software, Firmware and Documentation Copyright, Development and License Rights.

M.9.2.3.3.2 Sub-Factor 3.2: Maintenance

a) The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates their current commercial maintenance materials and addresses how these materials are developed, managed, and implemented into the field for use by non-factory personnel.

M-10

b) The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates their approach to the control of technical changes in maintenance documentation and policy when design/changes are made to the unit that have an impact on field and shop maintenance (see SOW Section C.3.4.3, Maintenance).

c) The degree to which the Offeror provides the organization, content, and level of detail of the maintenance manual that demonstrates that EGS problems and issues concerning interfaces with external systems and devices can be diagnosed and corrected by trained maintenance personnel using these maintenance manuals as a reference. The level of detail must enable the technician to identify the failure as an equipment failure and will enable the technician to isolate the failure to one of the Lowest Replaceable units (LRU).

d) The degree to which the Offeror describes their warranty of both parts and labor for EGS, associated equipment (including spare parts) and repair services (see SOW C.3.4.3.1.1, Warranty Repairs or Replacements) and the favorability of the warranty terms.

M.9.2.3.3.3 Sub-Factor 3.3: Integrated Support Plan (ISP)

a) The degree to which the Offeror’s ISP meets the requirements of SOW Section C.3.4.1.1, ILS Program Planning, or provides a narrative demonstrating how the requirements of SOW Section C.3.4.1.1 are to be satisfied. At a minimum, the ISP or narrative must address the following:

i. Contractor Depot Logistics Support (CDLS). The Offeror must demonstrate their capability to provide repair and replacement support of out-of-warranty EG equipment throughout CONUS and OCONUS. This includes but is not limited to Alaska and Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Bahamas, American Samoa, Guam, and the US Virgin Islands.

ii. The Offeror must also demonstrate their ability to support CDLS efforts by utilizing fully trained and experienced personnel within the time constraints specified in SOW Section C.3.5.4.4, CDLS Delivery Requirements, as well as maintain a secured warehouse space for exclusive use by the FAA. See SOW Section C.3.1.2.4, Pre Deployment Stock Warehouse.

iii. The Offeror must demonstrate the ability to collect data on parts and/or equipment failures and provide meaningful feedback to the customer on expected or actual trends in parts failure rates. They must also demonstrate an ability to correct high failure rate equipment components by providing feedback to the manufacturing source.

iv. The Offeror must demonstrate an integrated approach to notifying equipment users of changes to equipment hardware, firmware, and software. The Offeror must describe the means Offeror’s would use to distribute the information and implement the manual and software changes. The Offeror must also provide the corporate configuration control methodology. This methodology must not rely on compliance with ISO standards but describe how the configuration control is successfully

M-11 implemented and provide documentation of the companies Configuration Management Plan. See SOW Section C.3.1.2.7, Configuration Management.

M.9.2.3.4 Evaluation Criteria for Volume II - Factor 4 (Training Proposal)

a) The degree to which the Offeror provides a training proposal that demonstrates the requirements of SOW Section C.3.6, Training and Training Support.

b) The degree to which the Offeror provides a training proposal that demonstrates how their current factory training program is developed, managed, and implemented into an effective training program.

c) The degree to which the Offeror provides a training proposal that demonstrates their approach to the training required for technical personnel in supporting newly fielded EGS and their associated equipment.

d) The degree to which the Offeror provides a training proposal that demonstrates the Offeror’s factory training facilities and instructors’ qualifications (see SOW Section C.3.6).

e) The degree to which the Offeror provides copies of their commercial training materials and data, covering each configuration. The degree to which the Offeror’s training demonstrates:

i. Formal classroom activities, as well as technical documentation for use by the FAA for incorporation into existing FAA training programs.

ii. In-depth theory of operation, troubleshooting, and adjustment of all subsystems of the items listed in Section B CLINS X101 through X123, X138, X142, X143, X148, X149 and X150.

f) The degree to which the Offeror provides a factory training facility and course content providing training that demonstrates the FAA maintenance concept. To meet the FAA’s maintenance concept, training must demonstrate:

i. Inspection of equipment,

ii. Troubleshoot/diagnosis to fault,

iii. Removal of failed parts/LRU(s),

iv. Replacement of failed parts/LRU(s), and

v. Validation and certification (if applicable) that the system is operational and available for operation.

M.9.2.3.5 Evaluation Criteria for Volume II - Factor 5 (Key Personnel)

a) The degree to which the submitted resumes meet or exceed the requirements of Attachment J.04, Labor Categories.

b) The degree to which the resumes for the Key Personnel, Program Manager (PM) and ARTCC Critical Essential Power System (ACEPS) Program Manager (APM), demonstrate a minimum of five (5) years of program management experience with

M-12 contracts of the same or similar size, scope, and complexity as the anticipated contract from this SIR.

c) The degree to which the resumes for the Key Personnel, ACEPS Technical Advisor (ATA) and Technical Advisor (TA), demonstrate minimum of five (5) years of technical experience with contracts of the same or similar size, scope, and complexity as the anticipated contract from this SIR.

d) The degree to which the resumes for the Key Personnel demonstrate capability, experience, and performance relative to the requirements of Section C.3.1.

M.9.3 Volume III – Past Performance Evaluation

M.9.3.1 Definitions Used in The Evaluation Of Volume III

Table M-5 contains the definitions utilized when evaluating Volume III Past Performance.

Table M-5: Volume III (Past Performance), Definitions

Term Definition

Size Magnitude of effort. See L.7

Scope Range of operations or services covered. See L.7

Complexity Degree of difficulty needed to meet scope requirements. See L.7

Relevant Having similar scope, size (magnitude of effort) and complexity to the requirements of this SIR. See L.7

Recent Occurring within the last five (5) years of the date of proposal submission.

In the absence of relevant past performance as defined in Table M-5, the Offeror’s past performance may be assessed based upon their three (3) most recent past performance credentials closest to the EGS Program requirements as defined in this SIR. These examples may be submitted by the Offeror or identified by the FAA. If fewer than three Past Performance Customer Surveys are received, the FAA reserves the right to waive the submission requirement.

M.9.3.2 Ratings Used in The Evaluation of Volume III

The following ratings listed in Table M-6 will be used when evaluating Volume III, Past Performance. The resulting Rating represents the likelihood of the Offeror’s successful performance under the EGS contract.

M-13

Table M-6: DEFINITIONS OF ACCEPTABLE and UNACCEPTABLE

Rating Definition Acceptable The proposal section meets the requirements.

Unacceptable The proposal section does not meet the requirements.

M.9.3.3 Evaluation Criteria for Volume III

a) Whether the submitted Past Performance Customer Surveys and/or CPARS Performance Reports are consistent with information provided by the Offeror.

b) Whether the submitted Past Performance Customer Surveys and/or CPARS Performance Reports demonstrates customer (i.e., end user) satisfaction with the Offeror’s service.

M.9.4 Volume IV – Price Proposal

The FAA will evaluate proposed pricing of all CLINs for reasonableness and review proposed pricing for balance and completeness in accordance with AMS. The FAA reserves the right to perform price realism. The price proposals will not be rated or scored.

a) 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.

b) 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.

c) Completeness – The FAA will review each price proposal to determine whether it includes all required pricing information. The FAA at its sole discretion may require additional information or reject proposals lacking completeness.

M.9.4.1 Pricing Schedule and Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The FAA will evaluate the Offeror’s price proposal using the populated Section B Price Schedule for CLINS X101 through X155, and additional supporting documentation submitted by the Offeror. In evaluating offers for source selection, the FAA will use a TEP.

The TEP will be the sum of:

M-14

a) Proposed price for government-selected Firm Fixed Price CLINs;

b) Extended proposed prices for T&M CLINS; and

c) CLINs with FAA provided Not-to-Exceed (NTE) amounts.

The evaluation of options does not obligate the FAA to exercise the option(s).

M.9.4.2 Extended proposed prices for T&M CLINS

Extended proposed prices for T&M CLINS will result from multiplying the government estimated hours by the Offeror’s proposed fully burdened rate for each labor category. Government estimated hours used to develop extended proposed prices for T&M CLINS do not represent a commitment by the FAA to purchase this amount of service nor mix of labor.

M.9.4.3 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 whether or not the offeror identifies it as such.

End of Section M