693KA8-19-R-00006 - Section M.pdf

693KA8-19-R-00006

PART IV – REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1

FAA AMS Clauses and Provisions Incorporated by Reference

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

This screening information request (SIR) or contract, as applicable, incorporates by reference the provisions or clauses listed below with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make the full text available, or Offerors and contractors may obtain the full text via Internet at: http://conwrite.faa.gov.

(End of clause)

Clause

Number

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)

General Information

This section of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Controller Training Solutions (CTS)

SIR describes the factors that will be used to evaluate offers submitted in response to this solicitation.

Basis for Award

This acquisition will employ best practices and procedures for competitive procurements as authorized by the FAA Acquisition Management System (AMS). A “Best Value” approach will be used as the basis for selecting an Offeror for award. The Best Value approach is a source selection method based on identifying the offer representing the greatest value to the

Government as determined by the combined outcomes of the individual volume ratings and their relative level of importance as defined in Section M. The Best Value approach provides the opportunity for a trade-off between price and cost and non-price and non-cost factors, and does not require that award be made to either the Offeror submitting the highest rated proposal or the

Offeror submitting the lowest price, although award may be to either one of those Offerors.

Therefore, the lowest total evaluated price or the highest rated Offeror may not necessarily provide the best value to the Government.

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.

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

http://conwrite.faa.gov/

M-2

Evaluation Process

Overview

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.

In evaluating the proposals, the Government may conduct written or oral communications with any or all Offerors. The Government reserves the right to conduct communications with any individual Offeror or all competing Offerors. Communications with one or more Offerors do not require communications with other Offerors. The Government reserves the right to reject any exception taken to a term or condition of this SIR and to reject any proposal that includes such an exception.

While the Government reserves the right to conduct communications, the Government intends to evaluate each proposal without communications and award a contract to the responsible Offeror whose offer represents the best value to the Government as defined in Section M. Therefore, Offerors are cautioned that their initial proposals should contain the Offeror’s best terms.

Compliance Review

Each volume of the Offeror’s proposal will first be reviewed by the Contracting Officer (CO) to determine whether it satisfies the requirements of Section L and includes all the required information. 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.

Eliminating Proposals

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. The Contracting Officer will notify, in writing, any Offeror eliminated from further consideration. Eliminated Offerors may request a debriefing after contract award.

Responsibility Determination

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

M-3

To assist in this determination, the Government will review information provided in the

Offeror’s Volume I, Offer and Other Documents, submission. The Government also reserves the right to conduct a pre-award survey of any Offeror, or Offeror’s subcontractor(s) if deemed necessary by the CO. If a pre-award survey is conducted, it does not necessarily mean that an

Offeror has been selected for award.

Evaluation Order of Importance

Volume II (Program Management Approach) is more important than Volume III (Technical

Approach). Volumes II and III are more important than Volume IV (Past Performance). For the

Government’s Best Value trade-off, the combination of the Program Management, Technical

Approach, and Past Performance evaluation results is more important than the Volume V

(Cost/Price) evaluation results. As the difference between Offerors in the Technical Approach, Program Management Approach, and Past Performance evaluation results decreases, the

Cost/Price evaluation results will become more important.

Volume I (Offer and Other Documents) is not evaluated and has no bearing on the Government’s

Best Value trade-off. Volume VI (Small Business Subcontracting Plan) evaluation results are used to establish the Offeror’s commitment to the participation of Small Businesses in the CTS contract and are also not factored into the Best Value trade-off. The Government reserves the right to find an Offeror ineligible for award in the event that an unacceptable Small Business

Subcontracting Plan is submitted.

Within Volume II, Factor 1 (Management of Service Delivery) is more important than Factor 2

(Sample Problem Response). Factors 1 and 2 are more important than Factor 3 (Transition

Approach). Sub-factors within the Program Management evaluation factors are of equal importance.

Within Volume III, Factor 1 (Instructional Capabilities) is more important than Factor 2

(Approach and Ability to Provide Other Required Services). Factors 3

(Knowledge/Understanding of the FAA Air Traffic Control (ATC) Operating Environment) and

4 (Knowledge of and Familiarity with FAA ATC Training Process and Materials) are of equal importance and are less important than Factors 1 and 2.

Volume II – Program Management Approach Evaluation

Volume II will be evaluated using the factors and sub-factors listed below. Evaluators will identify strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks relative to the evaluation factors and sub-factors. The definitions of strength, weakness, deficiency, and risk are listed in Table M-1.

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-2. For

Factors 1 and 2, the factor-level adjectival ratings will be based upon the adjectival ratings of the underlying sub-factors. For Factor 3 (which does not have any sub-factors), the adjectival rating 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-4

Factor 1: Management of Service Delivery

Factor 1 is comprised of the following sub-factors. All sub-factors are considered to be of equal importance.

M.5.1.1. Sub-factor 1.1: Program Management Organization

The Government will evaluate:

The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed Program Management Organization (PMO), approach, processes, and tools facilitate effective management of all work efforts performed under the CTS contract. The degree to which the roles and responsibilities of the members of the proposed PMO are well defined and facilitate the effective management of all contract work efforts. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed organization and program management approach fosters open communication with Government-designated points-of-contact.

The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a sound and effective approach to recruiting and retaining sufficient personnel in all labor categories, outlined in Section J-2, necessary to support the requirements outlined in the SOW at the FAA Academy and FAA Field

Facilities listed in Attachment J-1.

The degree to which the Offeror has prior experience with recruiting and hiring a specialized staff of comparable magnitude to CTS staffing requirements, in a short period of time.

The degree to which the Offeror proposes comprehensive business processes that are well-aligned with the FAA’s business processes for: (1) the ordering of training/training support as defined in Section G.6, and (2) task order and contract line item number (CLIN)-based billing as defined in Section G.7.

M.5.1.2. Sub-factor 1.2: Program Management Execution

The Government will evaluate:

The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a sound and effective approach to Resource

Management that ensures that the required number of qualified personnel are available to support FAA training as required at the FAA Academy and FAA Field Facilities. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed approach to Resource Management ensures the required number of qualified personnel will be available to support FAA training at the FAA

Academy (per the sample Academy schedule, Attachment L-2) and FAA Field Facilities during times of fluctuation in requirements.

The degree to which the Offeror has prior experience providing and managing support of comparable magnitude as needed to meet CTS requirements (measured in terms of the total number of hours of support services the Offeror has provided across a 12-month period during the last seven (7) years, and the geographic range of support services provided (e.g., number of different states, regions, or countries)).

M-5

The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a sound and effective approach to contract site supervision, supported by their proposed ratios of employees to supervisors and a description of how contract staff will be managed at the FAA Academy and FAA Field

Facilities.

The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a sound and effective approach to managing subcontractors that will ensure that: (1) subcontractor personnel are in place as needed; (2) subcontractor personnel are integrated into the Contractor team; and (3) subcontractor personnel perform in an effective and efficient manner and meet the prime Contractor’s quality standards.

The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a sound and effective approach to managing and mitigating risk throughout the lifecycle of the contract.

M.5.1.3. Sub-factor 1.3: Task Order Management

The Government will evaluate:

The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a sound and effective approach to planning, executing, monitoring/supervising staff performance, and controlling all task order-based work efforts at all FAA locations identified in Attachment J-1.

The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a sound and effective approach to scheduling and managing the resources required to meet task order requirements. The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates the ability to (1) support varying durations of training and other support service delivery; and (2) effectively respond to changes to the FAA’s training schedule.

The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a sound and effective approach to quality control and performance management of task order-based efforts and to ensuring that CTS program objectives are met. The degree to which the Offerors proposed metrics and performance efforts will provide accurate and timely information for identifying deficiencies or negative trends in the quality of contractor-provided services.

The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a sound and effective approach to measuring the quality of service delivery in accordance with Section H.18. The degree to which the

Offeror demonstrates a sound and effective approach to mitigating and controlling issues impacting the quality of deliverables developed and delivered under this contract.

M.5.1.4. Sub-factor 1.4: Key Personnel

The Government will evaluate:

The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed Key Personnel are suitably qualified to effectively execute the responsibilities of their positions. The degree to which the proposed

Key Personnel are available and committed to the CTS program.

M-6

Factor 2: Sample Problem Response

Factor 2 is comprised of the following sub-factors. All sub-factors are considered to be of equal importance.

M.5.2.1. Sub-factor 2.1: Sample Problem 1

The Government will evaluate:

The degree to which the Offeror’s response to Sample Problem 1.1, including (1) the

Offeror’s understanding of the dynamic hiring challenges presented at the FAA Academy,

(2) the Offeror’s approach to hiring, recruiting, and retaining staff at the FAA Academy, (3) the Offeror’s approach to delivering all of the Academy training requirements as ordered by the FAA, (4) the Offeror’s approach to mitigation strategies without sacrificing the quality of instruction, (5) the Offeror’s approach to utilizing double shifts and (6) the Offeror’s identified risks and mitigation plans, demonstrates a sound and realistic approach to managing the dynamic staffing challenges presented at the FAA Academy.

The degree to which the Offeror’s response to Sample Problem 1.2, including the decomposition of the problem and the approach to addressing all of the questions presented in the scenario, demonstrates a sound and realistic approach to meeting the requirements at the FAA Academy.

M.5.2.2. Sub-factor 2.2: Sample Problem 2

The Government will evaluate:

The degree to which the Offeror’s response to Sample Problem 2, including the decomposition of the problem and the approach to addressing all the questions presented in the problem, demonstrates a sound and realistic approach to meeting FAA requirements at historically difficult to staff FAA field facilities.

Factor 3: Transition Approach

The Government will evaluate:

The degree to which the Offeror proposes a detailed and realistic schedule of activities and milestones that must be completed before they can begin providing training support services under the CTS contract, resulting in only a single day cutover of training services from the

CTC contract within 3 months of contract award. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed transition schedule clearly identifies a detailed and realistic ramp-up of staffing levels needed to deliver training support services to all locations listed in Attachment J-1.

The degree to which the Offeror’s transition narrative demonstrates the Offeror’s: (1) readiness to provide the required services after contract award in accordance with their proposed transition schedule; and (2) an orderly single day cutover of training support

M-7 services from the current contract to the CTS contract with no interruption or degradation of service that could result in a disruption to FAA operations.

The degree to which the Offeror has identified significant cost, schedule, and performance risk associated with their transition approach and the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates feasible and realistic high-level mitigation strategies for each risk.

Volume III – Technical Approach Evaluation

Volume III will be evaluated using the factors listed below. Evaluators will identify strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks relative to the evaluation factors. The definitions of strength, weakness, deficiency, and risk are listed in Table M-1.

Based upon the evaluation, evaluators will assign adjectival ratings to the associated factor. The range of adjectival ratings and their definitions are listed in Table M-2. An overall adjectival volume-level rating will be assigned to Volume III based on the factor-level ratings.

Factor 1: Instructional Capabilities

The Government will evaluate:

The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a sound and comprehensive approach to providing the full scope of work efforts required under SOW paragraph 4.2 (Training

Support Services). The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed approach to delivering training accounts for differences in the operating environments at the FAA Academy and

FAA Field Facilities, as identified in Attachment J-1, and is structured to effectively meet training requirements in these operating environments.

The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates an understanding of the qualification requirements for the LCATs listed in Attachment J-2 at FAA Field Facilities and the FAA

Academy and how they apply to delivering Air Traffic Control (ATC) training.

The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates an effective approach to ensuring its proposed instructor workforce maintains the required qualifications and certifications and familiarity with the FAA ATC operating environment.

The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a sound and comprehensive approach to managing the quality of instruction delivered at the FAA Academy and the full range of

FAA Facilities listed in Attachment J-1. The degree to which any proposed quality metrics demonstrate an effective approach to measuring quality of instruction delivered at the FAA

Academy and the full range of FAA Facilities listed in Attachment J-1.

Factor 2: Approach and Ability to Provide Other Required Services

The Government will evaluate:

The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a sound and comprehensive approach to supporting development, maintenance, and revision of FAA training materials for the FAA

Academy, and FAA National Curriculum, and Local and Regional Curriculum at FAA Field

Facilities.

M-8

The degree to which the Offeror proposes a sound and comprehensive approach to supporting: (1) the development of training strategies and processes, (2) improving training delivery, (3) conducting studies in areas relating to or affecting Air Traffic training, and (4) the management of the FAA’s Air Traffic Training program at the FAA Headquarters level and at the FAA Academy.

The degree to which the Offeror proposes a sound and comprehensive approach to identifying, evaluating, developing, and/or implementing innovations and enhancements to

Air Traffic Controller Training based on new or updated methods, technologies, systems, tools, and/or curricula.

Factor 3: Knowledge/Understanding of the FAA Air Traffic Control (ATC)

Operating Environment

The Government will evaluate:

The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the FAA

ATC operating environment across the full range of facilities identified in Attachment J-1.

The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the differences between the ATC operating environment at the FAA Academy and FAA Field

Facilities (Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCC), Terminal Radar Approach Control

(TRACON) facilities, Air Traffic Control Towers (ATCT) and Air Traffic Control System

Command Center (ATCSCC)) and how those differences influence the training required for controllers working in those environments.

The degree to which the Offeror has prior experience providing support services for an operational environment of a comparable level of complexity and operational criticality/safety as is required under CTS.

Factor 4: Knowledge of and Familiarity with FAA ATC Training Process and

Materials

The Government will evaluate:

The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates knowledge of and familiarity with the FAA

ATC training process including training methods, facilities, tools, course materials, and other resources used in controller training at the FAA Academy and FAA Field Facilities.

The degree to which the Offeror has prior experience with on-site classroom and simulation/laboratory training of FAA air traffic controllers on a national scale.

The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates an understanding of the roles and responsibilities of contract personnel in supporting FAA controller training at the full range of facilities listed in Attachment J-1.

The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates an understanding of the goals of the FAA Air

Traffic Controller Workforce Plan and the requirements of FAA Order 3120.4, Air Traffic

Technical Training in fulfilling the requirements of the SOW.

M-9

Volume IV – Past Performance Evaluation

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Past Performance Summaries and Past Performance

Questionnaire responses and will assign a confidence rating for each Offeror in accordance with the definitions provided in Table M-3. The confidence rating represents an assessment of the likelihood of the Offeror’s successful performance under the CTS contract based on their past performance.

In conducting its past performance evaluation, the Government will assess the following factors and will assign a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” to each factor. A rating of

“Acceptable” indicates that the Offeror’s Past Performance meets the stated criteria. A rating of

“Unacceptable” indicates that the Offeror’s Past Performance does not meet the stated criteria.

Each of the seven Past Performance evaluation factors is of equal importance. Offerors with no more than one Unacceptable factor-level rating will receive a volume-level rating of “High

Confidence.” Offerors with two or three Unacceptable factor-level ratings will receive a volume-level rating of “Satisfactory Confidence.” Offerors with more than three Unacceptable factor-level ratings will receive a rating of “Low Confidence.”

The Government will evaluate:

Recency: All past performance references submitted by the Offeror were performed within 7 years of the date of the proposal submission.

Relevance: All past performance references submitted by the Offeror are assessed by the

Government as being comparable to CTS in terms of the functional scope and/or complexity and representative of the Offeror’s capability, experience, and performance relative to the

CTS SOW requirements.

Quality of Service Delivery: The Offeror’s past performance demonstrates a successful record of consistently providing quality services that meet or exceed the customer’s requirements.

Cost Control: The Offeror’s past performance demonstrates an acceptable level of cost control on prior efforts.

Timeliness of Performance: The Offeror’s past performance demonstrates a successful record of achieving milestones, fulfilling contract requirements on time, and meeting delivery schedules.

Business Relationships: The Offeror’s past performance demonstrates a successful record of effectively communicating with customers, being proactive, and acting in partnership with the customer to achieve program objectives.

Program Management: The Offeror’s past performance demonstrates a successful record of: (1) managing programs, (2) assessing performance and implementing corrective actions when performance shortfalls are identified, and (3) providing an adequate level of supervision of contractor personnel and their work efforts.

The Government reserves the right to contact and verify past performance information with the references provided in the Past Performance Questionnaires and to use any other past performance information available. Additionally, past performance data may be obtained through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), the Contractor Performance

M-10

Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), or similar systems, other Government departments and agencies, program managers, contracting officers, and other sources known to the Government

(including commercial sources) including references other than those identified by the Offeror.

Offerors will be given the opportunity to address any negative performance information resulting from the past performance assessment inquiries.

If fewer than three Past Performance Surveys are received, the FAA reserves the right to waive the submission requirement or assign a lower rating for the volume. In the event that no surveys are received, the Offeror may receive a volume-level rating of “Neutral.”

Volume V – Cost/Price Evaluation

The FAA will evaluate Volume V 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 V to determine whether it includes all required pricing information, prices are consistent with described pricing methodology, and are traceable to the requirements set forth in Section C. Completeness will be determined based on the information requested in Section L. The FAA, at its sole discretion, may require additional information or reject proposals lacking completeness, consistency, or traceability.

The FAA will evaluate the total compensation plan submitted in accordance with AMS clause

3.6.2-15, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees to assure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. This evaluation will include an assessment of the Offeror's ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work.

The professional compensation proposed will be considered in terms of its impact upon recruiting and retention, its realism, and its consistency with a total plan for compensation.

The FAA will review the Sample Problem (Attachment L-1) responses for traceability to the prices proposed in the Cost proposal, as appropriate.

The FAA reserves the right to evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for balance. Unbalanced pricing exists where, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more labor categories is significantly understated and the price of one or more labor categories is significantly overstated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques; or the offer is so grossly unbalanced that its acceptance would be equivalent to allowing an advanced payment (front loaded). 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.

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.

M-11

Risk is inherent in any procurement. It will be identified throughout the price evaluation, although it will not be assessed. All identified risks will be included in the price report and may be used in the best value tradeoff.

M.8.1 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

In evaluating offers for source selection, the FAA will calculate the TEP, which includes base and all option periods. The TEP will be equal to the sum of the unit price for each CLIN multiplied by the Government-specified work efforts for all years, including options.

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

The Government’s Cost/Price evaluation results and the TEP will be considered in the Best

Value trade-off analysis. There is no volume-level rating of the Cost/Price Volume.

Volume VI – Small Business Subcontracting Plan Evaluation

The Government will evaluate Volume VI based on the process outlined below. Based on this evaluation, the Government will assign a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” in accordance with the definitions included in Table M-4. The submission of a Small Business Subcontracting

Plan is not applicable to small businesses, therefore any prime Offerors who are small or small disadvantaged businesses will receive an Acceptable rating for this factor.

The FAA will evaluate whether the Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan is fully compliant with FAA AMS clause 3.6.1-4, Small, Small Disadvantaged, Women-Owned and

Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Subcontracting Pan, as well as the goals set forth in Section L.

The FAA will further evaluate 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.

Definitions of Adjectival Ratings

The following definitions listed in Tables M-1 and M-2 will be used when evaluating the

Program Management and Technical Approach Volumes.

Table M-1. Definitions of Strength, Weakness, Deficiency, and Risk

Strength

An aspect of a proposal that would facilitate the successful performance for the resulting contract or approach, and/or which exceeds the minimum SIR requirements, and which benefits the Government.

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

Deficiency

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

M-12

Risk

An item found within an Offeror's proposal that, when assessed as to its probability of occurrence and its effect, presents an uncertainty as to the ability of the Offeror to successfully perform the required effort and/or the proposed approach.

Table M-2. Adjectival Ratings for Program Management and Technical Approach Volume

Evaluations

Rating Description

Excellent

The Offeror's response is comprehensive and demonstrates the capability to perform the full range of requirements and work effort. All or almost all aspects of the evaluation factors are addressed in a highly competent, substantiated, and logical fashion. Few, if any, areas for improvement can be cited. Proposal demonstrates that performance can be provided at a level that substantially exceeds expectations. The impact of strengths far outweighs the impact of any weaknesses.

Good

The Offeror's response is fully acceptable and appropriately responds to the full range of requirements and work effort. Most aspects of the evaluation factors are addressed in a highly competent, substantiated, and logical fashion. Proposal demonstrates that performance can be provided at a level that exceeds expectations. The impact of strengths outweighs the impact of any weaknesses.

Satisfactory

The Offeror's response is acceptable and adequately addresses the full range of requirements and work effort. Many aspects of the evaluation factors are addressed in a competent, substantiated, and logical fashion. Proposal demonstrates that performance can be provided at a level that meets expectations. No strengths or weakness were identified, or the impact of the weaknesses is equivalent to the impact of the strengths.

Marginal

The Offeror's response does not respond adequately to the full range of requirements and work efforts. Some aspects of the evaluation factors are not addressed. Offeror's response is deficient in several areas with no corresponding offset in other areas. Proposal raises concerns that acceptable performance cannot be achieved or sustained. The impact of any weaknesses and/or deficiencies outweighs the impact of any strengths.

Unsatisfactory

The Offeror's response 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. Proposal raises serious concerns that acceptable performance cannot be achieved or sustained. The impact of weaknesses and / or deficiencies far outweighs the impact of any strengths.

M-13

The following adjectival ratings listed in Table M-3 will be used when evaluating the Past

Performance Volume.

Table M-3. Adjectival Ratings for Past Performance Volume Evaluation

Rating Definition

High

Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s past performance record, the Government has high confidence that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required efforts.

Satisfactory

Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s past performance record, the Government has satisfactory confidence that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required efforts

Low

Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s past performance record, the Government has low confidence that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required efforts.

Unknown

Confidence

(Neutral)

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

The following adjectival ratings listed in Table M-4 will be used when evaluating the Small

Business Subcontracting Plans.

Table M-4. Adjectival Ratings for Small Business Subcontracting Plan Evaluation

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 and/or it does not meet the specified subcontracting goals or the AMS content requirements.