DRAFT ETR Section M 10-10-18 CJM.pdf

10/12/2018 693KA8-18-R-00007

Page M-1

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

TABLE OF CONTENTS

M.1. AMS 3.1-1 Clauses and Provisions Incorporated by Reference (July 2011)

M.2. Responsibility and Eligibility For Award

M.3. Communication with Offers

M.4. Evaluation Approach

M.5. Compliance Review

M.6. Basis for Award

M.6.1 Evaluation Order of Importance

M.6.2 Alternative Proposals and Exceptions, Deviations, and Assumptions

M.6.3 Award on Initial Offers

M.6.4 Evaluation of Risk

M.7. Evaluation factors

M.7.1 Factor 1 – Technical

M.7.1.1 Subfactor 1.1 – Capabilities and Attributes M.7.1.2 Subfactor 1.2 – Contractor Master Test Approach M.7.1.3 Subfactor 1.3 - Operational Capabilities Test

M.7.2 Factor 2 – Management Proposal

M.7.2.1 Part A – Key Personnel Resumes (Subfactor 2.1) M.7.2.2 Part B – Management Approaches (Subfactor 2.2) M.7.2.3 Part C – Training (Subfactor 2.5) M.7.2.4 Part C – Technical Support Services (Subfactor 2.6)

M.7.3 Factor 3 – Past Performance

M.7.3.1 Subfactor 3.1 – Relevance M.7.3.2 Subfactor 3.2 – Recency M.7.3.3 Subfactor 3.3 – Timeliness of Performance M.7.3.4 Subfactor 3.4 – Product and Associated Services Performance M.7.3.5 Subfactor 3.5 – Program Management M.7.3.6 Subfactor 3.6 – Customer Relationship M.7.3.7 Subfactor 3.7 – Maintenance and Problem Tracking M.7.3.8 Subfactor 3.8 – Maintenance and Repair M.7.3.9 Subfactor 3.9 – Training and Documentation

M.7.4 Factor 4 – Price

Total Evaluated Price

M.7.5 Quality System Plan (QSP)

Page M-2

M.8. Definitions

M.9. SECTION M ATTACHMENTS

Page M-3

M.1. 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. Offerors and Contractors may obtain the full text via Internet at: http://conwrite.faa.gov.

Clause Title

3.3.1-30 Progress Payments Not Included (November 1997) 3.6.1-10 Evaluation of Contractor Participation in the FAA Mentor Protégé Program

(January 1999)

M.2. RESPONSIBILITY AND ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARD

To be eligible for award, the prospective Contractor must be determined to be responsible in accordance with FAA Acquisition Management System (AMS) Source Selection Policy 3.2.2.2 (July 2018). To be determined responsible, a prospective Contractor:

– 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 assist in this determination, the Government reserves the right to conduct a pre-award survey of any Offeror and Offeror’s subcontractor. A pre-award survey does not mean that an Offeror has been selected for award.

A pre-award survey of one or more Offerors does not necessitate a pre-award survey of all Offerors. The following factors may be investigated during the survey and all findings may be considered in making a determination of responsibility.

• Production Capability

• Plant Facilities and Equipment

• Quality Assurance Capability

• Transportation/Shipping Operations

• Plant Safety

• Property Management Procedures

Prior to award of any contract, the Offeror must also be determined to be a responsible Contractor. The FAA may evaluate the financial statements requested IAW Section L.5.4 http://conwrite.faa.gov/

Page M-4 as part of the responsibility determination by performing various financial ratios to ensure the financial capability of the Offeror.

To be eligible for award, an Offeror’s proposal must be submitted in accordance with Section L and must conform to all the terms and conditions of the SIR that have not been explicitly waived. Submittals must be complete and accurate and contain the Offeror’s best 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 FAA reserves the right to (i) reject any and all offers, (ii) waive any requirements, and (iii) accept minor irregularities and discrepancies if in the best interest of the FAA. Omissions or vague responses to the requirements of this solicitation may cause a proposal to be determined incomplete and may cause the Offeror to be determined ineligible for award.

In addition to these criteria, if at any point 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. The Contracting Officer will provide written notification to any Offeror eliminated from further consideration.

M.3. COMMUNICATION WITH OFFERS

The Government may communicate with Offerors orally or in writing during the course of the evaluation. The Government reserves the right to conduct communications with one, some, all, or none of the Offerors. Communications with one or more Offerors do not necessitate communications with other Offerors. Responses to communication requests (also referred to as “clarification requests”) will, if appropriate, be treated the same as information submitted with the written proposals and may serve as bases for strengths, weaknesses, and risks.

M.4. EVALUATION APPROACH

A compliance review will be conducted on all proposals received as described in M.5 to determine whether it satisfies the requirements of Section L and includes all the required information. For those proposals that are compliant in accordance with M.5, the FAA will perform proposal evaluations based on the Offeror’s response to the SIR, as instructed in Section L, and in accordance with the evaluation factors for award as described herein.

Each eligible Offeror’s equipment will undergo an Operational Capabilities Test (OCT).

The OCT is an assessment of the ability of the Offeror’s equipment to meet the FAA ET requirements as described in M.7.1.3. The Offeror's relative position in the OCT sequence will be determined randomly. Offerors who do not submit the full set of equipment and products by the due date in Section L.3.1, or do not provide full OCT participation in accordance with the OCT Plan (Attachment M01), may be determined to be non-responsive.

Page M-5

M.5. COMPLIANCE REVIEW

All proposals will be reviewed for completeness, accuracy, and timeliness. A proposal that does not meet the initial screening criteria may be excluded from the competition.

The Government will notify the Offeror(s) of rejection.

M.6. BASIS FOR AWARD

This acquisition is being conducted in accordance with the FAA’s Acquisition Management System (AMS) and will utilize a best-value approach for selecting an Offeror for award. Under the best-value approach, the Government assesses non-price and price factors based on the evaluation factors in this section and their relative order of importance and selects the Offeror proposing the combination of non-price and price factors representing the best value to the Government. This approach provides the opportunity for a trade-off between price and non-price factors and does not require that awards be made to either the Offeror submitting the highest-rated technical proposal or the Offeror submitting the lowest price.

The Government intends to select a single Contractor for the ETR program. However, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all.

M.6.1 Evaluation Order of Importance For the best value determination, Factor 1 (Technical) is significantly more important than Factor 2 (Management), and Factor 2 (Management) is significantly more important than Factor 3 (Past Performance). The non-price factors (1, 2, and 3) collectively are significantly more important than Factor 4 (Price). As the differences among Offerors in the non-price evaluation decrease, the importance of Factor 4 increases.

The Technical and Management proposals (Volume I & II) will be numerically scored.

The technical score is based on the number of “shalls” and “shoulds” determined to be a “Pass” rating. In scoring the 259 shall requirements, one point will be awarded for each shall that is determined to be acceptable (“Pass”). In the event a “shall” or “should” is marked “Reserved,” the shall/should will be awarded with a “Pass”.

The score will be expressed as a decimal:

Requirement Rating = Total Number “Shalls” Passed/259

The Government’s intent is to award the contract to a vendor that meets the Government’s minimum requirements (“shalls” in the Production Description #FAA-E- 7868) at contract award. If no Offeror’s meet 100% of the Government’s minimum requirements, the Government maintains the right to award the contract. The Offeror(s) would be required to submit a mitigation plan for each “shall” they do not meet, once requested by the Government’s Contracting Officer. The intent is that the winning vendor would implement their mitigation plans prior to Factory Acceptance Testing

Page M-6

(FAT) at no cost to the Government. The submitted mitigation plans would be evaluated for risk by the Government.

In scoring the “Should” requirements, three points will be awarded for each “Should” that is identified as “High” Priority, 2 points will be awarded for each “Medium” priority “Should” determined to be acceptable (“Pass”). The score will be expressed as a decimal:

Requirement Rating = Total Number “High” Priority “Shoulds” Passed/90 (Maximum Points) Requirement Rating = Total Number “Medium” Priority “Shoulds” Passed/120 (Maximum Points)

The other technical factors such as Contractor’s Master Test Approach (CMTA) and Capabilities and Attributes will also be numerically scored IAW Table M.2.

The evaluation of these subfactors is provided in paragraph M.7.1 and subparagraphs.

The Management Proposal (Volume II) score consists of the evaluation of Program Management Approach, Configuration Management Approach, Integrated Support Approach, Logistics and Warranty, Training, and Technical Support Services are given a numerical score based on how the Offeror meets the requirements of the SOW “musts”.

The Management subfactors will also be numerically scored IAW Table M.2.

The subfactors are provided in paragraph M.7.2 and subparagraphs.

The Quality System Plan (Volume V) will be evaluated as either acceptable or unacceptable in accordance with Section M.8, Table M-6. The Quality System Plan will not be considered in the best-value trade-off, but the Government reserves the right to not award a contract to an Offeror whose Quality System Plan is rated unacceptable.

M.6.2 Alternative Proposals and Exceptions, Deviations, and Assumptions Alternate proposals submitted in response to this SIR will not be evaluated. With respect to specific terms or conditions of this SIR, any objection to any of the terms, conditions or requirements may constitute a deficiency as defined in Section M.8, Table M-5, which may make the offer unacceptable. As the FAA reserves the right to award a contract without discussions, in accordance with FAA AMS, Offerors are cautioned to consult with the Contracting Officer before submitting an offer that takes exception to any term, condition or requirement of this SIR. However, FAA also reserves the right to conduct Offeror specific communications/discussions and permit Offerors to revise their proposals, if the Contracting Officer deems appropriate and is in the best interest of the FAA. The FAA reserves the right to reject any exception for any reason.

Page M-7

M.6.3 Award on Initial Offers The FAA reserves the right to award a contract without communications or negotiations.

Therefore, it is critical that each proposal be fully responsive to this solicitation and its provisions.

M.6.4 Evaluation of Risk Risks identified within any aspect of an Offeror's proposal, and within any of the evaluation factors, will be analyzed as to their potential impact on the ETR program (e.g.

equipment performance, logistics support, work performance, program management, and schedule). 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 within any aspect of their proposal.

Risk will be assessed in Factors 1, 2, and 3 (Technical, Management, and Past Performance) and all Factors 1, 2, and 3 sub-factors. If the Offeror provides Remediation Plans (Para. L.5.1.3) the FAA will assign a risk factor to each Remediation Plan.

Definitions of high, medium, and low risk are provided in Section M.8, Table M-4. Risk will not be separately assessed in Factor 4 - Price.

M.7. EVALUATION FACTORS

M.7.1 Factor 1 – Technical The Offeror’s technical proposal will be numerically scored based on the subfactors identified in the subsections below. All subfactors are individually scored.

Subfactor 1.3 – Operational Capability Test is more important than Subfactor 1.2 CMTA, and Subfactor 1.2 CMTA is more important than Subfactor 1.1 – Capabilities and Attributes.

Through the assessment of strengths and weaknesses defined in Section M.8, Table M-1, a numerical rating as defined in Section M.8, Table M-2, will be applied to each subfactor. Based on the subfactor ratings, an overall numerical rating from Section M.8, Table M-2 will be assigned to Factor 1 – Technical.

M.7.1.1 Part A - Capabilities and Attributes (Subfactor 1.1) The degree to which the capabilities and attributes of the Offeror’s proposed ETR system support the requirements defined in section 3 of FAA-E-7868 and add value to the Government. The degree to which LRU designs and relationships provide resiliency, flexibility, and scalability. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed Maintenance Data Terminal software solution will allow the Government to effectively and efficiently maintain the radio equipment, e.g. change parameter settings, observe readouts, set/recall settings, etc.

Page M-8

M.7.1.2 Part B – Contractor Master Test Approach (Subfactor 1.2) The degree to which the Offeror’s CMTA demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of all ET test activities including sequence, durations, and interdependencies will be numerically scored. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed facilities, test equipment, reporting and processes for corrections and deficiencies, described in the CMTA will be part of the Technical score. The degree to which the Offeror’s CMTA provides an effective approach to managing and staffing the ET test activities will also be part in the score.

M.7.1.3 Part C – Operational Capabilities Test (Subfactor 1.3) The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed system meets the requirements listed in the ET OCT Verification Requirements Traceability Matrix (VRTM) provided in SIR (See Attachment M02 and L04) is the major factor in the technical score.

Testing, Demonstrations and Inspections will be performed on the OCT equipment to determine the extent to which the Offeror’s proposed equipment meets the ET requirements as stated in FAA-E-7868.

At the completion of the Testing, Demonstration, Inspection and Analysis phase, the data will be reviewed, and an overall numerical rating will be assigned for the outcome of the

OCT.

M.7.1.4 Part D – FAA-E-7868 Self Evaluation Form (Subfactor 1.4) Each Offeror must perform a self-evaluation of their equipment against each requirement set forth in Product Description, FAA-E-7868. The results of this assessment (meets/does not meet) must be recorded on the FAA-E-7868, Self-Evaluation Form provided in L05 and submitted as Part D of the Technical Proposal. If cases arise where the FAA OCT evaluation determines that the equipment does not meet a requirement, but the self-evaluation shows the requirement is met, the FAA can request clarification to resolve the discrepancy.

If cases arise where the Offeror states that they do not meet a “shall”, the Offeror must submit a Remediation Plan that indicates how the Offeror intends to meet that “shall”.

There will be no additional cost to the price of the equipment to implement the remediation.

If the Offeror provides Remediation Plans (See L.5.1.4) the FAA will assign a risk factor to each Remediation Plan.

M.7.2 Factor 2 – Management Proposal The Offeror’s management proposal will be evaluated based on the criteria identified in the subsections below using the general evaluation criteria of approach, understanding and soundness defined in Section M.8, Table M-3. All six Management subfactors are individually scored and considered equally important.

Page M-9

Through the assessment of strengths and weaknesses defined in Table M-1, the Government will assign a numerical rating from Section M.8, Table M-2 to each subfactor. The subfactor ratings will be used to determine the overall numerical rating for Factor 2 – Management.

M.7.2.1 Part A – Key Personnel Resumes (Subfactor 2.1) The resumes of the Key Personnel will be scored using the following factors:

The degree to which the educational background and work experience of the proposed ETR Program Manager is relevant and would lead to success in executing the ETR Contract. The degree to which the educational background and work experience of the proposed ETR Chief Engineer/Architect is relevant and would lead to success in executing the ETR Contract. The degree to which the educational background and work experience of the proposed ETR Logistics Manager is relevant and would lead to success in executing the ETR Contract. The degree to which the educational background and work experience of the proposed ETR Training Lead is relevant and would lead to success in executing the ETR Contract.

M.7.2.2 Part B – Management Approaches (Subfactor 2.2)

M.7.2.2.1 Part B.1 - Program Management Approach The degree to which the Offeror’s Program Management Approach (PMA) including the Integrated Master Schedule Approach (IMSA) demonstrates a comprehensive understanding and sound approach to managing key ETR milestones, activities and critical paths to successfully execute the ETR program will be scored. The degree to which the Offeror’s PMA demonstrates the Offeror’s capability and commitment to successfully provide parts for the full life of the contract including option years will be scored. The degree to which the Offeror’s PMA demonstrates the capability to meet or exceed required production rates, delivery schedule and its corporate commitment to achieving the proposed production and delivery schedule goals throughout the life of the contract will be scored. The degree to which the Offeror’s IMSA includes all activities and activity inter-dependencies of the Contractor, subcontractors, and dependencies on the FAA for all parts of the contract in the SOW will be scored. The degree to which the Offeror’s IMSA is risk adjusted and supported by risk analysis with appropriate mitigating factors identified.

The Government reserves the right to not evaluate any PMA appendices or subordinate documents that are to be excluded per Section L.5.2.2 (last paragraph).

M.7.2.2.2 Part B.2 – Configuration Management Approach (Subfactor 2.3) The degree to which the Offeror’s Configuration Management Approach (CMA) demonstrates the Offeror’s understanding of all ETR configuration management requirements in the Statement of Work (SOW), Section C.3.3 will be scored. The degree to which the Offeror’s CMA demonstrates sound procedures for documenting and disseminating information on revisions to the hardware (down to the board level) and the software will be scored. The degree to which the Offeror’s CMA demonstrates the

Page M-10

Offeror has sound procedures for updating the commercial manual/technical instruction book and the long term supportability data package will be scored.

M.7.2.2.3 Part B.3 – Integrated Support Approach (Subfactor 2.4) The degree to which the Offeror’s Integrated Support Approach (ISA) demonstrates the Offeror’s understanding of all logistics management requirements identified in the SOW Section C.3.6 and C.3.7, except 3.6.10 will be scored. The degree to which the Offeror’s ISA provides a sound approach to effectively manage all logistics management requirements will be scored.

The degree to which the Offeror’s ISA provides a comprehensive approach and commitment to support the ETR equipment for the entire life cycle of the contract will be scored. Degree to which the Offeror’s ISA demonstrates that their warranty and non-warranty repair service will ensure quality and timely repair of all components will be scored.

M.7.2.3 Part C – Training (Subfactor 2.5) The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a comprehensive understanding and sound approach to meeting the training requirements in section C.3.6.10 will be scored. The degree to which the Offeror’s existing COTS training materials and/or their experience, and lessons-learned developing past training programs will facilitate the development of a FAA-approved training course and materials will be scored.

M.7.2.4 Part C – Technical Support Services (Subfactor 2.6) The degree to which the Offeror’s team is structured to ensure effective response and execution of Government-issued task orders and that the required expertise and knowledge is readily available to address requirements for logistics, training, testing, and engineering task orders will be scored. The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates they have a viable approach and methodology to promptly respond to ad-hoc task orders resulting from Operational Testing, Field Familiarization test activities, or any other activity or event that may require additional, unanticipated Contractor support services will be scored. The degree to which the Offeror’s Telephonic Support demonstrates the ability to provide responsive and effective support to resolve equipment engineering, maintenance, operation, and training problems for the life of the contract and warranty period will be scored.

M.7.3 Factor 3 – Past Performance Past Performance is evaluated from a combination of the evaluation team’s assessment of the Offeror’s Past Performance Summary and responses received from the Past Performance Customer Survey. The Government reserves the right to contact the customer points of contact. In addition, the Government reserves the right to obtain additional past-performance information for any prime Offeror and any proposed subcontractors from the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Dun & Bradstreet reports, previous contracts, and other sources as determined appropriate by the

Page M-11

Government. Information from any or all of these sources may be considered in the evaluation of an Offeror’s past performance.

All nine subfactors within Factor 3, Past Performance are of equal importance and will be numerically scored using the definitions provided in Section M.8, Table M-2.

Subfactors 3.1 (Relevance) and 3.2 (Recency) will be evaluated and numerically scored based on the Offeror’s write-up of its Past Performance Summary, Part I of Attachment L02.

The Past Performance Evaluation Team will evaluate those Past Performance Customer Survey responses received by the submission deadline. If less than two past-performance survey responses are available for consideration, subfactors 3.3 through 3.9 will be viewed as a weakness. If two past-performance survey responses are available for consideration, subfactors 3.3 through 3.9 responses that are marked as (5) Satisfactory or higher, will be viewed as a strength. Responses marked as marginal or unsatisfactory will be viewed as a weakness.

M.7.3.1 Subfactor 3.1 – Relevance The degree to which the Offeror’s past performance is comparable to ETR requirements in terms of size, scope, and complexity and the operating environment will be scored.

M.7.3.2 Subfactor 3.2 – Recency The degree to which the Offeror’s past performance is ongoing or was completed within five (5) years of the date of the proposal submission deadline will be scored.

M.7.3.3 Subfactor 3.3 – Timeliness of Performance The degree to which the Offeror’s past performance demonstrates a record of achieving milestones and fulfilling contract requirements on time and meeting delivery schedules will be scored.

M.7.3.4 Subfactor 3.4 – Product and Associated Services Performance The degree to which the Offeror’s past performance demonstrates that the product and associated services met or exceeded contract requirements and that the Offeror was able to resolve issues without extensive guidance from the customer will be scored.

M.7.3.5 Subfactor 3.5 – Program Management The degree to which the Offeror’s past performance demonstrates a successful record of managing programs of similar size, scope and complexity; and managing cost, implementing corrective actions when performance shortfalls are identified, and supervising Offeror personnel and their work efforts will be scored.

Page M-12

M.7.3.6 Subfactor 3.6 – Customer Relationship The degree to which the Offeror’s past performance demonstrates a record of effectively communicating with customers; being proactive in responding to problems, issues, and client concerns; and acting in partnership with customers to achieve program objectives will be scored.

M.7.3.7 Subfactor 3.7 – Maintenance and Problem Tracking The degree to which the Offeror’s past performance demonstrates that it’s maintenance and problem tracking system was/is sufficient will be scored. Degree to which the Offeror’s past performance demonstrates Offeror communicates with the customer to keep them informed of status in a timely manner will be scored.

M.7.3.8 Subfactor 3.8 – Maintenance and Repair The degree to which the Offeror’s past performance demonstrates that it’s maintenance and repair service was provided in a satisfactory manner and met the terms of the contract in a timely and cost-efficient manner will be scored.

M.7.3.9 Subfactor 3.9 – Training and Documentation The degree to which the Offeror’s past performance demonstrates the Offeror’s technical documentation (e.g. user manuals) and training were sufficient to meet user needs and the documentation was user friendly will be scored.

M.7.4 Factor 4 – Price The FAA will evaluate the proposed prices for reasonableness in accordance with AMS Policy 3.2.3.2 and AMS Procurement Guidance T3.2.3. A cost/price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

The FAA will review Volume IV to determine whether it includes all required pricing information and prices are consistent with the described pricing methodology. Proposal completeness will be determined based on the information requested in Section L.5.4.

The FAA, at its sole discretion, might require additional information or reject proposals lacking completeness and/or consistency.

The FAA reserves the right to perform price realism in accordance with AMS T3.2.3.

The FAA reserves the right to conduct cost analysis on labor rates if deemed necessary to support the price realism analysis. This may require the FAA to request additional information from the Offerors.

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

Page M-13

Total Evaluated Price For evaluation purposes, the FAA will calculate the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) which includes the base and all option periods and will be equal to the sum of the extended prices for all CLINs for all years as well as the government specified Not-to-Exceed (NTE) amounts. The evaluation of options does not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

M.7.5 Quality System Plan (QSP) The FAA will evaluate the Offeror’s Quality System Plan (QSP) as either Acceptable or Unacceptable using Section M.8, Table M-6.

The FAA will evaluate whether the Offeror’s QSP meets the requirements set forth in AMS Clause 3.10.4-13 Higher-Level Contract Quality Requirement (October 2015) .

M.8. DEFINITIONS

Table M-1 Definitions of Strength and Weakness

Strength An aspect of the Offeror’s proposed solution, or obtained from any other appropriate evaluation source that meets or exceeds the stated requirement and/or provides the following:

1) An especially thoughtful, innovate, or unique solution or approach to the technical requirement;

2) An exceptional device, approach, or process which saves time and/or material, reduced risk, reduces cost, etc.

Weakness

An aspect of the Offeror’s proposed solution, or obtained from any other appropriate evaluation source that (while ostensibly meeting FAA requirements and needs) was presented in such a manner as to:

1) inhibit a total assessment or evaluation;

2) be an inadequate attempt at satisfying or addressing an FAA requirement or need; or

3) cause harm to the Government, e.g. increases time and/or material, increases cost or risk, etc.

Page M-14

Table M-2 Definition of Evaluation Ratings

Rating (0-10) DESCRIPTION Excellent

Greater or equal to

The Offeror’s proposed solution or response meets requirements, is comprehensive and demonstrates an in-depth exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The combined impact of the identified strengths far outweighs any identified weaknesses and/or risk.

Good Greater or equal to

6, but less than 8

The Offeror’s proposed solution or response meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. The Offeror’s proposed solution or response is fully acceptable and appropriately responds to the full range of the requirements and work effort. The combined impact of identified strengths outweighs any weaknesses and/or risk.

Satisfactory Greater or equal to

4, but less than 6

The Offeror’s proposed solution or response meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The combined impact of any strengths is approximately equal to the combined impact of any weaknesses and risk.

Marginal Greater or equal to

2, but less than 4

The Offeror’s proposed solution or response does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The combined impact of weaknesses and/or risk outweigh any identified strengths.

Unsatisfactory Less than 2

The Offeror’s proposed solution or response does not meet requirements. The combined impact of weaknesses and/or risk far outweigh any identified strengths.

Table M-3 Definitions of Approach, Understanding, and Soundness

Approach The degree to which the technical and management approach demonstrates comprehension of the requirements and the necessary resources to execute a successful program.

Understanding The degree to which the technical or management approach for implementing the requirements is logical, feasible, and achievable given the requirements. The degree to which performance and schedule risks are identified and mitigated.

Soundness The degree to which the technical or management approach are viable and achievable.

Page M-15

Table M-4 Definitions of High, Medium, and Low Risk

RISK RATING DESCRIPTION

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

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

Table M-5 Definition of Deficiency

Deficiency

A descriptive statement(s) or the lack of descriptive statement(s) that causes the Offeror’s proposal to fail to meet FAA requirements or does not allow the evaluators to determine if the FAA requirements contained within the SIR have been met.

Table M-6 Adjectival Ratings for Quality System Plan

Rating Definition Acceptable The Offeror’s response demonstrates a viable Quality System Plan that meets the requirements set forth in AMS Clause 3.10.4-13 Higher-Level Contract Quality Requirement (October 2015).

Unacceptable The Offeror’s response does not demonstrate a viable Quality System Plan that meets the requirements set forth in AMS Clause 3.10.4-13 Higher-Level Contract Quality Requirement (October 2015) .

M.9. SECTION M ATTACHMENTS

M01 – Operational Capability Test Plan

M02 – OCT Verification Requirements Traceability Matrix

M.7.5 Quality System Plan (QSP)