Section M _ Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

SIR 693KA8-20-R-00008

PART IV - SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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

REFERENCE (JULY 2019)

This screening information request (SIR) or contract, as applicable, incorporates by reference the provisions or clauses listed below with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer 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.

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 BASIS FOR AWARD

Award Selection: The FAA intends to award to the Offeror whose proposal represents the best value and is the most advantageous to the FAA. In determining best value, the FAA may in accordance with AMS

3.2.2 Source Selection, employ a tradeoff process allowing for award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically rated offer.

The FAA will evaluate Technical and Price factors. The Technical Proposal factor and sub-factors are collectively more important than Price. Factor A, Factor B, Factor C, and Factor D are equal in value.

Within Factor A Experience, Past Performance and Key Personnel: Sub Factors A.1 Relevant Experience, A.2 Past Performance, and Sub Factor A.3 Key Personnel are equal in importance. Within Factor B Equipment Proposal: Sub Factors B.1 DC BUS Module Performance and B.2 DC BUS Equipment Characteristics are equal in importance. Within Factor C Logistics Proposal: Sub Factors C.1 Software, Sub-Factor C.2 Maintenance and Sub-Factor C.3 Integrated Support Plan (ISP) are equal in importance.

To the extent that two (2) or more Offerors are rated comparably in those sections, the Price factor becomes more significant.

The FAA will also consider risk in its determination of best value. Subjective judgment on the part of the FAA is implicit in the evaluation process. The risk assessment is intended to aid the source selection process by adding more information to the best value determination. Best value will be based on the following:

a. Technical Evaluation results and ranking of Offerors

b. Price Evaluation

c. Risk Assessment

M.3 INFORMATION AND CONSIDERATIONS AFFECTING VENDOR PROPOSAL

SUBMISSIONS

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

b. All offers will be screened initially to determine if they are in compliance with the Screening Information Request (SIR) procurement response instructions described in Section L. The FAA reserves the right to eliminate all offers submitted by an Offeror if these instructions are not followed or if the Offeror does not clearly demonstrate understanding of the requirements of the SIR. This Section M provides the criteria by which Offerors’ proposals will be evaluated.

c. The Offeror must provide adequate and specific information in their proposal. A proposal may be eliminated from further consideration if the proposal is so grossly and obviously deficient as to be unacceptable without further evaluation. Some examples of proposal deficiency are as follows: failure to sign Standard Form-33; missing any segments, volumes, or certifications; submittal does not represent a reasonable effort to address all elements of the SIR’ or clearly demonstrate that the Vendor does not understand the requirements of the SIR.

d. All business classifications will be encouraged to submit offers for this SIR.

e. Alternate proposals will not be evaluated. In the event a proposal is rejected, a notice will be sent to the Offeror stating the reason(s) that the proposal will not be given further consideration.

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

g. All offers will be subjected to a detailed evaluation, as follows:

i. Volume 1, Offer and Other Documents. This section will be evaluated in accordance with SIR Section M.5.

ii. Volume 2, Technical Approach will be subjected to a detailed evaluation by the Technical Evaluation Team (TET) that will rate proposals in accordance with Section M.6, Technical Evaluation.

iii. Volume 3, Price Proposal. Price proposals will be evaluated in accordance with SIR Section M.7, Price Evaluation.

h. Technical proposals will be evaluated and rated in accordance with pre-established evaluation factors.

These factors and Sub-Factors are listed in M.6, Technical Evaluation.

i. The Price Evaluation Team (PET) will not have access to technical proposals during the initial detailed evaluation. Likewise, the technical evaluation team will not have access to price proposals during the initial detailed evaluation. After completion of the initial detailed evaluation, the technical and price evaluation teams may have access to the other team’s proposals only as authorized by the Contracting Officer.

j. Because several proposals are anticipated, uniformity of proposals is essential to assure a fair and accurate assessment of each offer. All proposals must be submitted in accordance with Section L and must conform to all the terms and conditions of the SIR. Failure to conform to all requirements expressed may be cause for rejection without further evaluation or discussion.

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

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

M.4 SUMMARY OF OVERALL EVALUATION PROCESS

Proposal Price and Technical factors are evaluated as set forth herein. The evaluation team may consider tradeoffs between technical factors and price, keeping in mind that non-price factors are significantly more important than price in determining the overall Best Value to the FAA. The evaluation team will not meet until the PET and TET team have completed their respective evaluations.

a. Technical Evaluation. The Technical volume will henceforth be referred to as the Technical proposal.

Technical proposals will be reviewed by the TET in order to determine whether the Technical Evaluation Factors, identified in Section L.8.2, have been met. Technical proposals that have been evaluated to meet the requirements identified in Section L.8.2 will then be further evaluated and rated according to their ability to exceed the requirements identified in Section L.8.2 and the evaluation factors listed in Section M.5. Technical ratings are then ranked in preparation for a Best Value determination. Technical proposals that have been evaluated and determined to not meet the Technical Evaluation Factors identified in Section L.8.2 will be eliminated from further consideration.

b. Risk Assessment. The FAA will assess the risk associated with conducting business with each Offeror. This risk assessment will be completed after the technical evaluation. The risk assessment will be used to help determine best value for the FAA.

c. Price Evaluation. The Price Evaluation Team (PET) will evaluate offers in accordance with M.6 below. Unlike technical proposal submissions, price proposals will not be rated.

d. Best Value Determination. Using the results from the TET and the PET, the Source Selection Official will select for award the offer that provides the greatest overall value to the FAA. A tradeoff between technical and price may be made, in which case, the lowest total evaluated price offer may not provide the greatest overall value to the FAA, nor may the highest-rated technical proposal.

To be eligible for award, the Offeror must be determined to be financially viable and found to be responsible by the Contracting Officer (CO) prior to the award of any resultant contract (refer to Section L.7.1.5).

M.5 TECHNICAL EVALUATION

M.5.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA

The evaluation factors listed below are intended to determine the Offeror’s capabilities to effectively and efficiently provide a DC BUS solution to the FAA.

1. Factor A – Experience, Past Performance and Key Personnel:

a. Sub-Factor A.1 – Relevant Experience

In accordance with L.8.1.1, this sub-factor will be evaluated based upon the completed Attachment J.26 on the degree to which the proposed response includes a minimum of three (3) recent (within the past five (5) years) contracts considered most relevant, that demonstrates the ability to perform contracts that are same or similar size (projects no less than $50,000,000), scope (Program Management; Logistics; Training, and Installation), and complexity (in this instance, performing design and/or installation of DC BUS equipment simultaneously at multiple facilities located CONUS and OCONUS, while maintaining CDLS operations) to this requirement.

b. Sub-Factor A.2 – Past Performance In accordance with L.8.1.2, this sub-factor will be evaluated based upon the completed Attachment J.21 questionnaires submitted by customers, assessing the performance of the Offeror on relevant contracts that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to this SIR.

The contracts selected by the Offeror must demonstrate that the Offeror has an understanding of the work to be performed. The FAA will determine the relevance of a past performance project/contract by analyzing the following and comparing it to the SIR:

1. “Scope” by considering the type of service provided (i.e., “Is the project/contract for

Program Management, Logistics, Training, and Installation?”);

2. “Size” by considering various measures such as, but not limited to, any or all of the following: projects no less than $50,000,000; AND

3. “Complexity” by considering various measures such as, but not limited to, performing design and/or installation of DC BUS equipment simultaneously at multiple facilities located CONUS and OCONUS, while maintaining CDLS operations.

c. Sub-Factor A.3 – Key Personnel

In accordance with L.8.1.3, this sub-factor will be evaluated based on the degree to which the proposed resumes and letter of intent of key personnel meet the minimum five (5) years of program management experience (PM) and three (3) years of program management experience (APM) with relevant contracts of same or similar size, (projects no less than $50,000,000), scope (Program Management; Logistics; Training, and Installation), and complexity (in this instance, performing design and/or installation of DC BUS equipment simultaneously at multiple facilities located CONUS and OCONUS, while maintaining CDLS operations) in a Government or corporate environment to the nature and extent required by Section 3.1 of the SOW.

2. Factor B – Equipment Proposal:

a. Sub-Factor B.1 – DC BUS Module Performance

In accordance with L.8.2.1, this sub-factor will be evaluated based on the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed DC BUS equipment will support the specification requirements below as related to CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0002. This will encompass a paragraph-by-paragraph review of Attachments J.22 and J.23.

1. Environmental Requirements and System Operation, Normal System Operation (J.1 Sections 1.4 and 2.6)

2. Electrical Input Requirements (J.1 Section 2.4)

3. Electrical Output Requirements (J.1 Section 2.5)

4. DC BUS Module Design (J.1 Section 2.7)

5. DC BUS Startup Service and Battery Testing (J.1 Section 3.1 and 3.2)

b. Sub-Factor B.2 – DC BUS Equipment Characteristics In accordance with L.8.2.2, this sub-factor will be evaluated based on the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed DC BUS meets the Module Physical Characteristics, Remote Monitoring Capabilities, Display and Controls requirements, and Battery requirements detailed in Attachment J.1.

This sub-factor will also evaluate the Offeror’s DC BUS Equipment Characteristics Specification Compliance Review, Attachment J.24, which encompasses a paragraph-by-paragraph review of the Specification.

1. Definition, Major Component List, and General (J.1 Sections 1.0, 1.1. and 2.0)

2. DC BUS Performance Rating, Continuous Output Capacity Rating, and Battery

Capacity (J.1 Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3)

3. Display and Controls (J.1. Section 2.8)

4. DC BUS Rack/Cabinet (J.1 Section 2.9)

5. Battery String and Ancillary Equipment (J.1 Section 2.10 and 2.11)

3. Factor C – Logistics Proposal:

a. Sub-Factor C.1 – Software

In accordance with L.8.3.1, this sub-factor will be evaluated based on the following: the degree to which the Offeror identifies all software and firmware, including third party applications or operating systems as required. The degree to which the Offeror discloses all data rights or lack of open architecture that may restrict any subsequent FAA access and/or usage. The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates the ability that the proposed software and firmware can be reproduced, copied, altered, used and modified. The degree to which the Offeror includes a description of the vendor policy approach to the management of software changes and distribution of those changes that have an effect on deployed DC BUS equipment. The Offeror’s software submittal to Section L.8.3.1 will be evaluated as part of the overall criteria of this sub-factor as it relates to Section 3.3.1 of the

SOW.

b. Sub-Factor C.2 – Maintenance In accordance with L.8.3.2, this sub-factor will be evaluated based on the following: the degree to which the Offeror provides a narrative description of current commercial maintenance materials and address how these materials are developed, managed, and implemented into the field for use by non-factory personnel. The degree to which the Offeror describes 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. The Offeror’s maintenance submittal to Section L.8.3.2 will be evaluated as part of the overall criteria of this sub-factor as it relates to Section 3.5.3 of the SOW.

c. Sub-Factor C.3 – Integrated Support Plan (ISP) In accordance with L.8.3.3, this sub-factor will be evaluated based on the degree to which the Offeror provides a copy of their ISP or provides a narrative that demonstrates their ability to meet the requirements of Section 3.5.1.1 of the SOW. The Offeror’s ISP submittal to Section L.8.3.3 will be evaluated as part of the overall criteria of this sub-factor as it relates to Section 3.5.1.1 of the SOW.

4. Factor D – Training Proposal:

In accordance with L.8.4, this factor will be evaluated based on the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates how their current factory training program is developed, managed, and implemented into an effective training program, as well as the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates their ability to meet the FAA maintenance concept. This factor will also evaluate the degree to which the Offeror’s factory training facilities, and instructor’s qualifications, meet the requirements in Section 3.7 of the SOW. The Offeror’s Training submittal to Section L.8.4 will be evaluated as part of the overall criteria of this factor as it relates to Section 3.7 of the SOW.

M.5.2 EVALUATION RATINGS

Factors will be rated by the evaluation team on the rating scale shown below.

a. Excellent

b. Good

c. Satisfactory

d. Marginal

e. Unsatisfactory

M.5.2.1 TECHNICAL EVALUATION RATINGS DEFINITIONS

The ratings relate to the following definitions:

RATING DESCRIPTION

Excellent

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

Good

The Offeror’s response to the topic is fully acceptable and appropriately responds to the full range of requirements and work effort. A few minor weaknesses may be noted.

The combined impact of the strengths outweighs the combined impact of any weaknesses.

Satisfactory The Offeror’s response to the topic is appropriate and addresses adequately the full range of requirements and work effort. Although there may be some weaknesses and areas in need of improvement, these are offset by strengths in other areas.

Marginal

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

Unsatisfactory

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

M.5.2.2 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS

The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror's demonstrated relevant record of performance in meeting the contract’s requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each Offeror after evaluating the Offeror's Past Performance Questionnaire, Attachment J.21, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract’s requirements.

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

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

a. Offeror’s each Past Performance Questionnaire, Attachment J.21, will be assigned a relevancy rating ranging from “Very Relevant” to “Not Relevant” in accordance with the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings described below.

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

c. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance, and will be rated “Neutral” on Sub-Factor A.2 – Past Performance.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is a determination of how well the Offeror performed on the contracts. The FAA will review Past Performance Questionnaires and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to its performance confidence assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, the FAA will assign one of the Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings described below.

M.5.2.3 PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

RATINGS DESCRIPTION

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

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Neutral No record exists - neither favorably nor unfavorably.

M.5.2.4 PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

RATINGS DESCRIPTION

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

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

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the FAA has a limited expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror's relevant performance record, the FAA has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

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

M.6 PRICE EVALUATION

The FAA will evaluate the proposed prices for reasonableness and review proposals for completeness in accordance with AMS Policy 3.2.3.2 and AMS Procurement Guidance T3.2.3. The FAA will conduct price analysis but reserves the right to conduct price realism.

For evaluation purposes, the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated by adding the total price for the base and all options. The evaluation of options will not obligate the FAA to exercise the options. The TEP will be the sum of:

a. CLINs XXXX1 DC BUS and Components. The total of the proposed FFP Sub-CLINs will be evaluated.

b. CLINs XXXX2, DC BUS Battery & Ancillary Equipment. The proposed NTE amount for Sub-CLIN X0002A, identified in Price Exhibit A and the total of the proposed FFP Sub- CLINs will be evaluated.

c. CLINs XXXX3, Manuals Soft Copy. The total of the proposed FFP Sub-CLINs will be evaluated.

d. CLINs XXXX4, DC BUS Start-Up Service. The total of the proposed FFP Sub-CLINs will be evaluated.

e. CLINs XXXX5, DC BUS Implementation Service. The FAA NTE amount, the total of the proposed FFP Sub-CLINs and the extended price for each LH Sub-CLINs. LH Sub- CLINs will be calculated by multiplying the FAA specified hours by the Offeror’s proposed fully burdened rate. The specified hours are for evaluation purposes only and do not represent a commitment from the FAA.

f. CLINs XXXX6, Equipment Delivery & Disposal Service. The FAA specified NTE amounts.

g. CLINs XXXX7, Technical Support Services. The extended price for each LH Sub-CLINs.

LH Sub-CLINs will be calculated by multiplying the FAA specified hours by the Offeror’s proposed fully burdened rate. The specified hours are for evaluation purposes only and do not represent a commitment from the FAA.

h. CLINs XXXX8, DC BUS Contractor Conducted Training. The total of the proposed FFP Sub-CLINs will be evaluated.

i. CLIN’s XXXX9, Training Development. The FAA specified NTE amounts.

j. CLIN’s XXX10, Program Management. The total of the proposed FFP Sub-CLINs and the extended price for each LH Sub-CLINs. LH Sub-CLINs will be calculated by multiplying the FAA specified hours by the Offeror’s proposed fully burdened rate. The specified hours are for evaluation purposes only and do not represent a commitment from the FAA.

k. CLIN’s XXX11, Integrated and Contractor Depot Logistics Support. The FAA NTE amount, the total of the proposed FFP Sub-CLINs and the extended price for each LH Sub- CLINs. LH Sub-CLINs will be calculated by multiplying the FAA specified hours by the Offeror’s proposed fully burdened rate. The specified hours are for evaluation purposes only and do not represent a commitment from the FAA.

l. CLIN’s XXX12, Conferences and Meetings. The extended price for each LH Sub-CLINs will be calculated by multiplying the FAA specified hours by the Offeror’s proposed fully burdened rate. LH Sub-CLINs will be calculated by multiplying the FAA specified hours by the Offeror’s proposed fully burdened rate. The specified hours are for evaluation purposes only and do not represent a commitment from the FAA.

m. CLIN’s XXX13, Travel Support. The FAA specified NTE amounts.

n. CLIN's XXX14, Subsistence Support. The FAA specified NTE amounts.

M.7 RISK ASSESSMENT

a. A risk assessment will be accomplished at the conclusion of the overall evaluation process (i.e., evaluation of Factors A through D). The risk assessment is intended to aid the source selection process by adding more information to the best value determination.

b. The risk assessment will be conducted the TET Lead. Members of the TET who identify potential risks are to communicate those risks to their respective team lead for consideration and inclusion in the assessment. Risks may be identified by any team or evaluator throughout the evaluation process.

c. Risks will be evaluated both as to their potential impact on the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the contract and the likelihood of the risk occurring. This analysis will evaluate risks in terms of their potential impact on cost, schedule, and work performance while simultaneously addressing the probability of undesirable impacts. Risks may be identified within any aspect of the Offeror’s proposal, or from any additional sources of information.

d. The risk assessment will determine what overall level of risk the entire proposal includes.

Determining the overall level of risk is not a numeric average or summation of the number of risks identified. Rather, the level of overall risk associated with a proposal depends on the types of risks identified and the likelihood of their occurrence. For example, the team could conclude that a proposal with many risks has an overall low level of risk because those risks will have little impact on the Offeror’s ability to perform. On the contrary, the team could find a single risk whose impact is so large that it jeopardizes the Offeror’s ability to perform.

e. Categories to be used in assessing risk to the FAA are:

Categories Description

Low Risk Limited potential to cause decreases in performance or increases in schedule.

Normal contractor effort and normal FAA monitoring will probably be sufficient to overcome difficulties.

Moderate Risk Could potentially cause some decreases in performance or increases in schedule.

However, increased contractor emphasis and increased FAA monitoring may be able to overcome difficulties.

High Risk Likely to cause significant decreases in performance or increases in schedule even with increased contractor emphasis and increased FAA monitoring.

M.8 NON-GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL PARTICIPATION

Offerors are hereby notified that the FAA may have proposals or other written information provided in response to this acquisition reviewed by personnel from various support contractors who may serve as advisors to FAA evaluation personnel during the evaluation phase of this acquisition. All non-Government personnel and their corporations have signed a non-disclosure and conflict of interest statements. The exclusive responsibility for source selection, however, will remain with the FAA. The FAA has plans to use support contractors to take part in the source selection process. These support contractors are:

• PolyCon Solutions, LLC.

• Leidos Inc.

M.9 DEFINITIONS

The following definitions are applicable:

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

b. Clarification - Normally used to eliminate minor irregularities or apparent clerical mistakes in the proposal or presentation. Clarification of apparent clerical mistakes includes correction of statements within the offer; it does not include the providing of additional information not previously contained within the proposal.

c. Strength - An aspect of the technical proposal that has a positive impact on the FAA. An example would be an especially thoughtful, innovative, or unique solution or approach to an evaluation area. Likewise, strength may also be a unique solution, approach, or process to a technical or management problem or requirement that saves time, material, and could potentially reduce cost.

d. Weakness - An aspect in the proposal that, if the Offeror was selected, would have a negative impact on the FAA.

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