693KA8-20-R-00014 Section M Amendent 0001.pdf

SIR DTFAWA-20-R-00014 /

Amendment 0001

PART IV - SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

This screening information request (SIR) incorporates by reference the provisions listed below with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Offerors may obtain the full text at http://conwrite.faa.gov.

Clause Title 3.2.4-31 Evaluation of Options (April 1996) 3.3.1-30 Progress Payments Not Included (November 1997)

M.2 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. In the event a proposal is rejected, a notice will be sent to the Offeror stating the reason(s) that the proposals will not be given further consideration. This Section M provides the criteria by which Offerors’ proposals will be evaluated.

(c) This SIR will use a tiered proposal evaluation process in accordance with Section L, L.10 and (AMS) T.3.2.2 Source Selection. Successive tiers of small business types may be evaluated in order to promote small business participation while providing the FAA with the ability to continue the procurement if small business participation is insufficient. The tiers that this SIR will use are as listed below in order of precedence.

1. Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Businesses (SEDB) / 8(a) Small Businesses

2. Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB)

3. Woman-Owned Small Businesses

4. Small Business Concerns (SB)

5. Full and Open Competition including Large Businesses

(d) 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.

http://conwrite.faa.gov/

PART IV - SECTION M

(e) All offers will be subjected to a detailed evaluation by the Source Selection Evaluation Team

(SSET).

(1) Volume 1, Offer, Other Documents, and Pricing. Price proposals will be evaluated in accordance with SIR Section M.5 and the Price Evaluation.

(2) Volume 2, Technical and Past Technical Performance, 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.

(f) Technical proposals will be evaluated and rated in accordance with pre-established evaluation factors. These factors are listed in M.6.1.

(g) 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. At this time, a consolidated PET and TET team will evaluate Lowest-Priced, Technically Acceptable as indicated in M.5 below.

(h) The offer that provides the Lowest-Priced, Technically Acceptable value to the FAA will be selected. The Government will evaluate Technical determining Technical Acceptability based on the criteria and acceptability standards set forth in Section M.6 and Table M-1. Offerors will not receive any additional credit for exceeding the established standards.

(i) 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.

(j) Additional information may be requested from the Offeror whose proposal the FAA considers to represent the Lowest-Priced, Technically Acceptable value. The information may clarify or supplement, but not make any cardinal changes to, 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 must be submitted on the most favorable terms from the standpoint of technical approach and price.

(k) 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.3 BASIS FOR AWARD

This acquisition will employ best practices and procedures for competitive procurements as authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration Acquisition Management System (AMS). A Lowest-Priced, Technically Acceptable approach will be used as the basis for selecting an Offeror

PART IV - SECTION M

for award as determined by the combined outcomes of the individual volume ratings as defined in Section M. With this method, Section M establishes certain standards that an offeror must meet to be considered technically acceptable. An offeror does not receive any additional credit for exceeding the established standards.

Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is judged to represent the Lowest-Priced, Technically Acceptable to the Government. The Lowest-Priced, Technically Acceptable decision will be based on the evaluation of each Offeror’s proposal submitted in accordance with Section L and evaluated in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section M. The source selection process is by nature subjective and the Government Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) and the Source Selection Official (SSO) will apply their professional judgment throughout the entire source selection process. The FAA reserves the right to: (i) reject any and all offers, (ii) waive any requirements, and

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

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 from this solicitation.

Offerors are advised that the Government reserves the right to make an award based on initial proposals received, without communications. Offerors must not assume that they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss, or revise their proposal. Offerors are instructed to submit proposals with their most favorable price and non-price terms.

M.4 EVALUATION PROCESS

The following sections describe the process by which the Government will evaluate proposals. The Government will exercise judgment in evaluating all information collected.

M.4.1 COMPLIANCE REVIEW

Each volume of the Offeror’s proposal will first be reviewed by the Contracting Officer to determine whether it satisfies the requirements of Section L and includes all the required information. Proposals that omit required information or do not fully conform to Section L requirements may be found ineligible for award.

M.4.2 OFFEROR COMMUNICATIONS, DEVIATIONS, AND WAIVERS

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 does not necessitate communication with all Offerors.

The FAA will not be considering any deviations or waivers, nor will the Government be

PART IV - SECTION M

evaluating an Offeror’s strengths or weaknesses.

M.4.3 ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

All of the Technical Factors and Subfactors and Past Technical Performance (Volume 2) are more important than Price (Volume 1).

Within the Technical Factors (Volume 2) Factor 1: One-on-one, on demand tutoring service that complies with the statement of work, which is comprised of Subfactors 1.1 through 1.10 and Factor 2: Provide qualified tutors and Factor 3: Project management, all factors and subfactors are all of equal weight. To be Technically Acceptable, all of an Offeror’s Technical Factors (Volume 2) and Subfactors must be evaluated as Acceptable.

If two or more Offerors are rated Technically Acceptable per their Volume 2, Technical, then the Lowest-Priced, Technically Acceptable Offeror per Volume 1, Price evaluation will be selected.

M.4.4 SUMMARY OF OVERALL EVALUATION PROCESS

(a) Proposal Price, Technical, and Past Performance factors are evaluated as set forth herein.

The Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET), a combined team consisting of both Price Evaluation Team (PET) and Technical Evaluation Team (TET) members, will evaluate for technical acceptability and then for price. The SSET will not meet until the PET and TET team have completed their respective evaluations.

(b) Technical (Volume 2), Project Management (Volume 2) and Past Performance (Volume 2) and Evaluations will be reviewed by the TET in order to determine whether the minimum requirements of the Statement of Work (SOW) have been met. Technical and Project Management Proposals (and Past performance Evaluations/Proposals) that have been evaluated and determined to not meet the minimum requirements as identified in the SOW will be eliminated from further consideration. The TET will evaluate Technical and Project Management in accordance with M.6 and Table M-1 below.

(c) Risk Assessment. The Government 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 the Lowest-Price, Technically Acceptable value for the government.

(d) Price Evaluation. The Price Evaluation Team (PET) will evaluate offers in accordance with M.5 below. Unlike technical proposal submissions, price proposals will not be rated.

PART IV - SECTION M

(e) Lowest-Price, Technically Acceptable Value Determination. Using the results from the TET and the PET, the SSO will select for award the offer that provides the Lowest- Price, Technically Acceptable value to the FAA.

(f) 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.

M.5 VOLUME 1 – PRICE EVALUATION

The Government will evaluate proposed pricing for all Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) for reasonableness, and review proposed pricing for completeness, consistency, and traceability. Price proposals will not be scored or rated. The Government reserves the right to perform price realism, if deemed necessary in accordance with AMS Guidance T3.2.3, Cost and Price Methodology. If necessary, the Government reserves the right to request additional cost or pricing data to perform cost analysis.

• Reasonableness - The FAA will evaluate each price proposal for reasonableness in accordance with AMS Policy Section 3.2.3 and AMS Policy and Procurement Guidance Section T3.2.3. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

• Completeness/Consistency/Traceability - The FAA will review each price proposal to determine whether it includes all required pricing information, aligns with summary pricing tables, and provides adequate and traceable supporting pricing details. The FAA at its sole discretion may require additional information or reject proposals lacking completeness, consistency, and traceability.

M.5.1 TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE

Using the populated Section B, submitted by the Offeror, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Price proposal to determine the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). In evaluating offers for source selection, the FAA will use the TEP which includes base and option periods. The evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). The TEP will be equal to the sum of:

• The sum of the total dollar amount for all the contract line item numbers (CLINs) entered into Section B.

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

PART IV - SECTION M

and/or unsubstantiated proposal.

M.5.2 EXCEPTIONS OR DEVIATIONS

The Government will not consider exceptions or deviations. The FAA reserves the right to deem a proposal statement that contradicts a SIR requirement to be an exception or deviation, whether or not the Offeror identifies it as such.

M.6 VOLUME 2 - TECHNICAL EVALUATION

M.6.1 TECHNICAL EVALUATION

The evaluation factors listed below are intended to determine the offerors' capabilities to effectively and efficiently provide one-on-one, on demand tutoring services to the FAA.

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s Technical Volume on an Technically Acceptable / Technically Unacceptable basis only in accordance with the Technical Ratings Table M-1.

M.6.1.1 Factor 1: One-on-one, on demand tutoring service that complies with the statement of work Subfactor 1.1: One-on-one web-based tutoring Evaluation Criteria: One-on-one tutoring sessions must be conducted through an online web-based format where students can connect with instructors through a computer, tablet, or cell phone using Android or iOS operating systems.

Subfactor 1.2: Teaching based on uploaded course materials Evaluation Criteria: Tutors can teach students based on course materials provided by students uploading information by typing, drawing, by photo or by uploading a document in multiple formats (.pdf, .rtf, .doc, .xls, .jpg, .ppt, etc.).

Subfactor 1.3: Tutoring on demand or as scheduled, 24 hours per day, 7 days a week Tutoring support must be available to students on demand or scheduled 24/7, except Federal holidays. See Section H, paragraph H.7 OBSERVANCE OF FEDERAL HOLIDAYS.

Subfactor 1.4: Must provide required tutoring subjects Evaluation Criteria: Available tutoring subjects must include Applied Algebra, Applied Calculus, Applied trigonometry, Period Waves and Phasor Analysis, Applied Logarithms and Decibels, Calculus, Calculus Based Physics, Fractions, Exponents, Roots, Algebraic Operations, Powers of Ten, Application of Equations, General Concepts of Angles, Basic Trigonometric Relationships, Graphical Representation of Functions, Inverse Functions, Introduction of Periodic Waves and Phasors, Phasor Representation of Periodic Waves, Graphic Addition of Waves, Application of Complex Algebra to Phasor Calculations, Application of Logarithms.

PART IV - SECTION M

Subfactor 1.5: Must be able to support a minimum of 500 FAA users, simultaneously, immediately upon award during each contract year.

Subfactor 1.6: Tutoring sessions must be recorded and archived Evaluation Criteria: Tutoring sessions must be recorded and archived by the vendor in video and PDF formats for student to refer to after completing a session. The vendor must retain the sessions for two years.

Subfactor 1.7: The learner must be able to provide tutor feedback Evaluation Criteria: The learner must be given the opportunity to rate the tutor when they are finished with the tutoring service and at the end of each tutoring session.

Subfactor 1.8: Tutors are chosen or matched Evaluation Criteria: Students must be able to choose specific tutors or be matched with a tutor that best fits the subject matter.

Subfactor 1.9: Offeror able to provide feedback The offeror must be able to provide feedback about transfer of knowledge, change in learner performance, and recommendations for learner success.

Subfactor 1.10: Text and voice support and Section 508 compliance Evaluation Criteria: Text and voice support should be available for students and tutors to connect and must be in compliance with the Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794d).

Factor 2: Provide qualified tutors The Offeror must demonstrate that they can provide tutors that meet the evaluation criteria.

Evaluation Criteria: Tutors must demonstrate they are qualified to tutor math subjects by meeting one or more of the following criteria: Have a Bachelor’s degree or higher in mathematics, engineering, or other related field; have taken and passed a qualification exam administered by the offeror that demonstrates sufficient knowledge of listed subject areas to provide tutoring in those subject areas; hold a government issued teaching license.

Factor 3: Project management Evaluation Criteria: The offeror must demonstrate the capability to manage the contract’s overall performance and all the necessary technical, business and administrative tracking (e.g., cost, schedule, and deliverables) performance management, risk management, and resource management required to successfully perform all activities as required.

M.7 VOLUME 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

PART IV - SECTION M

M.7.1 Past Performance Past Performance must be either as a Prime or Sub-Contractor and must be recent. For the purpose of this proposal evaluation, recent is defined as performed in the last five (5) years and may include active (on which the Offeror has performed for at least one (1) year) and inactive contracts. The Offeror’s Past performance will be evaluated based on the completed Section L attachments that are similar in 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 under this SIR.

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

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. First, the Government 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 this SIR.

Relevancy is defined as those contracts of similar 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 SIR.

• Offeror’s past performance projects will be assigned a relevancy rating ranging from “Very Relevant” to “Not Relevant” in accordance with the Past performance Relevancy Ratings described in Table M-2 below.

• 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 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.

• 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” for this Sub-Factor.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is a determination of how well the Offeror performed on the contracts. The Government will review the Offeror’s past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to its performance assessment.

PART IV - SECTION M

In conducting a performance confidence assessment, the Government will assign one of the Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings specified in Table M-3 below.

M.8 EVALUATION RATINGS

M.8.1 TECHNICAL EVALUATION RATINGS

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

Technically Acceptable Technically Unacceptable b.) The ratings relate to the following definitions:

The following criteria will be used to evaluate the Offeror’s Technical Factors (Volume 2) and Subfactors.

Table M-1

TECHNICAL RATING

RATING DEFINITION

Technically Acceptable

The Offeror's response to this solicitation meets all of the evaluation criteria of the subfactor.

Technically

Unacceptable

The Offeror’s response to this solicitation does not meet all of the evaluation criteria of the subfactor.

PART IV - SECTION M

M.8.2 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS

Past performance will be evaluated using the following rating scales.

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Table M-2

RATING DESCRIPTION

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

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

Partially Relevant

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

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Neutral • No record exists - neither favorably nor unfavorably.

PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

Table M-3

RATING DESCRIPTION

Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

PART IV - SECTION M

Limited Confidence

Based on the Offeror's relevant performance record, the Government has a limited expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No

Confidence

Based on the Offeror's relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. Note: An offeror with a final rating of No Confidence may be found ineligible for award.

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.9 RISK ASSESSMENT DEFINITION

The definitions listed in Table M-4 below will be used when evaluating the risks of each Offeror’s proposal.

Table M-4

CATEGORY DESCRIPTION

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

Moderate

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

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

End of Section M The remainder of this page, intentionally left blank.