693KA8-26-R-00003 Section M.pdf

SIR No. 693KA8-26-R-00003 Part IV - Representations and Instructions

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M.1 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

AMS 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 Offerors and contractors may obtain the full text via Internet at: https://fast.faa.gov/contractclauses.cfm

REFERENCE TITLE

3.2.4-31 Evaluation of Options (October 2024) 3.3.1-30 Progress Payments Not Included (October 2024)

M.2 BASIS FOR AWARD

This acquisition is being conducted in accordance with (IAW) the FAA’s 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 defined in Section M.

The Best Value approach provides the opportunity for a trade-off between price and non-price factors and does not require that award be made to either the Offeror submitting the highest rated proposals or the Offeror submitting the lowest price, although an award may be made to either one of those Offerors. Therefore, the lowest 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.

M.3 EVALUATION PROCESS

M.3.1 Overview

The Government will evaluate Offeror responses to the SIR IAW the evaluation criteria for award described herein.

In evaluating 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.

Offerors are cautioned not to minimize the importance of a detailed, adequate response in any area because of its order of importance, or due to its not being rated.

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

It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure the completeness of the proposal. The evaluation of proposals will be conducted based on the information contained in the written proposal. The Government will not assume that an Offeror possesses any capabilities not specified in the written proposal.

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

M.3.2 Tiered Evaluation

Tiered evaluation of offers is a process by which the FAA promotes small business participation while providing the FAA a means to continue the procurement if small business participation is insufficient without issuing another SIR.

For this procurement the tiered order of precedence in descending order is as follows:

(1) Small Businesses

(2) Other Than Small Businesses

Once offers are received, FAA will evaluate a single tier of offers according to the order of precedence specified in the SIR. If no award can be made at the first tier, the evaluation will proceed to the next lower tier until award can be made. If no award can be made at the first tier, offerors from the first tier continue on in the evaluation and are evaluated against offerors from each subsequent tier.

IAW AMS Procurement Guidance T.3.2.2.3.B.7.a.(3), the CO must consider the tiers of small business concerns prior to evaluating offers from other than small business concerns. Offers from other than small business concerns will only be considered after the determination that an insufficient number of offers from responsible small business concerns were received.

M.3.2 Eliminating Proposals

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 reserves the right to determine such proposals as ineligible for further evaluation and for contract award.

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.

Multiple exceptions and/or deviations, or one or more significant exceptions and/or deviations not providing benefit to the FAA, may result in rejection of an Offeror’s proposal as unacceptable or otherwise non-compliant.

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 Government also reserves the right to (i) reject any and all offers, (ii) waive any requirement, and/or (iii) accept minor irregularities and discrepancies if doing so is determined to be in the best interest of the FAA.

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

M.3.3 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.

The Government will conduct a compliance review of all proposals for adherence to the items identified in Section L.8, Proposal General Instructions. The FAA will initially screen all proposal volumes for completeness, accuracy, and timeliness. The FAA may not evaluate further any Offerors whose proposals do not fully meet SIR requirements.

This SIR does not authorize alternate proposals. FAA will not evaluate any alternate proposal received.

M.4 RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATION

To be eligible for award, the prospective Contractor must be determined by the CO to be responsible IAW AMS Procurement Guidance T3.2.2.7, Contractor Qualifications. To assist in this determination, the Government will review information provided in the Offeror’s Proposal Documentation submitted IAW Section L.9.4.1.5. The Government also reserves the right to conduct a pre-award survey of any Offeror 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.

Contract award will be made only to a Contractor determined by the Contracting Officer to be responsible. As a minimum, to be determined responsible, a prospective Contractor must:

• Have or can obtain adequate financial resources to perform a contract,

• Have the ability to meet any required or proposed delivery schedules,

• Have a satisfactory performance history,

• Have a satisfactory record of integrity and proper business ethics,

• Have 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

• Be qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws or regulations.

The FAA may rely on information from compliance and regulatory agencies and/or independent investigation to determine Offeror’s responsibility.

M.5 EVALUATION FACTORS

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

(1) Factor 1 - Management Proposal (Volume 3, Part A)

• Subfactor 1.1 – Management Approach

• Subfactor 1.2 – Transition

(2) Factor 2 - Technical Proposal (Volume 3, Part B) •Subfactor 2.1 – Staffing •Subfactor 2.2 – Quality Assurance

(3) Factor 3 – Past Performance Confidence (Volume 3, Part C) •Subfactor 3.1 – Relevance •Subfactor 3.2 – Quality

(4) Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Other-than-Small Businesses Only)

• Not Rated

(5) Price (Volume 2)

• Not Rated

M.6 EVALUATION FACTORS ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

Factor 3 (Past Performance) is more important than Factor 1 (Management Proposal) and Factor 2 (Technical Proposal). Factor 1 (Management Proposal) is more important than Factor 2 (Technical Proposal).

• Within Factor 1 (Management Proposal), Subfactor 1.2 (Transition) is more important than Subfactor 1.1 (Management Approach).

• Within Factor 2 (Technical Proposal), Subfactor 2.1 (Staffing) is more important than Subfactor 2.2 (Quality Assurance).

• Within Factor 3 (Past Performance Confidence), Subfactor 3.2 (Quality) is more important than subfactor 3.1 (Relevance) in determining the Past Performance Confidence rating.

Factors 1, 2 and 3 when combined are significantly more important than Price. As the difference between Offerors in the Management Proposal, Technical Proposal, and Past Performance Confidence evaluations results decreases, the Price evaluation results will become more important. To the extent that two (2) or more Offerors are rated comparably in those sections, the Price factor becomes more significant.

M.7 NON-COST/PRICE PROPOSAL FACTOR EVAULATIONS (Volume 3)

M.7.1 Factor 1 – Management Proposal

The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates their ability to provide effective and efficient management of CSO services and the Offerors’ ability to ensure CSO services are provided in a timely manner IAW Section C, Statement of Work. Subfactor ratings will be used to determine the overall, rolled-up Factor rating.

(i) Subfactor 1.1 – Management Approach

This subfactor will be evaluated on the degree to which the proposed management approach, and Offeror’s organization will effectively and efficiently oversee guard services. Similarly, the degree to which the Offeror proposes efficient and effective management efforts regarding day-to-day, as well as emergency or contingency operations, will be evaluated. The Offeror’s Program Management Plan, as required in Section C.18.1, and referenced in L.9.4.3.A.1 Volume 3, Part A, Section 1 - Management Approach etc, will also be evaluated under this subfactor.

(ii) Subfactor 1.2 – Transition

This subfactor will be evaluated based on the degree to which the proposed transition methodology, timeline, staffing, and staff qualifications and training will ensure a timely, effective, and efficient transition of guard services. The Offeror’s Transition Plan, as required in Section C.18.2, and referenced in L.9.4.3.A.2.1 Volume 3, Part A, Section 2.1 - Transition Methodology etc, will also be evaluated under this sub-factor.

M.7.2 Factor 2 – Technical Proposal

The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates their ability to ensure that CSO services are provided IAW the Staffing and Quality Assurance requirements set for in Section C. Subfactor ratings will be used to determine the overall, rolled-up Factor rating.

(i) Subfactor 2.1 – Staffing This subfactor will be evaluated based on the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed staffing processes and procedures effectively and efficiently satisfy the requirements stated in Sections C.6, C.7, and L.9.4.3.B.1 Volume 3, Part B, Section 1 – Staffing. Proposed measures regarding temporary additional staffing, maintenance of staff certifications and records control will also be evaluated here for effectiveness and efficiency.

(ii) Subfactor 2.2 – Quality Assurance This subfactor will be evaluated based on the degree to which the Offeror proposes strategies for effectively and efficiently ensuring that the quality of service provided under the contract is of the highest level according to Sections C.19, and L.9.4.3.B.2 Volume 3, Part B, Section 2 - Quality Assurance etc. Proposed measures regarding the supervision of security officers and quality control will also be evaluated here for effectiveness and efficiency.

M.7.3 Factor 3 –Past Performance Confidence

The past performance evaluation will be accomplished though assignment of past performance relevance, quality, and confidence ratings.

IAW L.9.4.3.C Volume 3, Part C – Past Performance Confidence (Factor 3):

a) The prime Contractor’s (Offeror’s) primary business must be providing armed 24/7 CSO services. If subcontractor(s) are proposed, the subcontractor(s)’ primary business must be providing armed 24/7 CSO services.

b) The prime Contractor (Offeror) must have at least five (5) or more consecutive years of documented experience in providing armed 24/7 CSO services in each of four or more states concurrently by the proposal submission due date listed in L.3.2. If subcontractor(s) are proposed, each subcontractor must also have at least five (5) or more consecutive years of documented experience in providing armed 24/7 CSO services in each of four or more states concurrently by the proposal submission due date listed in Section L.3.2. The documented experience must be written evidence of providing armed 24/7 CSO services to large facilities similar to an FAA Security Level 4 (air traffic control tower) or higher staffed facility that has over 450 employees and over 150,000 square feet of space.

IAW L.9.4.3.C Volume 3, Part C – Past Performance (Factor 3), FAA will evaluate this factor using completed L.1 Past Experience questionnaires as provided by the offerors, and L.2 Past Performance questionnaires completed by customers for the projects identified by the Offerors in the completed L.1. questionnaires.

Offerors must submit no more than three (3) projects/contracts for itself and no more than three

(3) projects/contracts for each subcontractor. If the Offeror and/or its subcontractors submit more than three (3) projects/contracts each for consideration, only three (3) will be reviewed. The three

(3) reviewed will be the first three (3) as displayed within the proposal section. If fewer than three (3) completed L.1 and/or L.2 questionnaires are received, the FAA reserves the right to assign a lower rating for the factor.

FAA will assess Offerors’ past performance relevance as experience on contracts that include similarity of service/support provided, complexity of effort, dollar value, contract type, and, where applicable, the degree of subcontracting/teaming. To be relevant performance data needs to be recent as described in Section L of the RFP. The contracts submitted by the Offeror must demonstrate that the Offeror understands the work to be performed.

FAA will determine the relevance of a project/contract by analyzing the following and comparing it to the SIR:

(a) “Scope” by considering the type of service provided (such as “Is the project/contract for providing armed 24/7 CSO services at multiple installations simultaneously?”);

(b) “Magnitude” by considering various measures such as, but not limited to, any or all of the following: number of productive hours per year, number of CSO personnel to support the effort, and total contract value; AND

(c) “Complexity” by considering various measures such as, but not limited to, any or all of the following: whether or not CSOs are armed; type of CSO qualifications and training requirements; type of permit, licensure and certification requirements in performance of the effort, pursuant to SIR Sections L.9.4.1.4 and C.3.d/C.10. Typical duties/responsibilities required of security force; type of protection required (e.g., interior and exterior building protection vs. exterior-only protection and gate access control); and the number and geographic dispersion of service sites under a single project.

FAA will assess the Offerors’ past performance quality as how well an offeror meets or exceeds contractual requirements, how problems encountered during contract performance were addressed, and the effectiveness of corrective actions taken.

FAA will assess Offerors’ past performance confidence as an overall evaluation of contractor relevance and quality of past performance ratings to determine the degree of confidence the Government places in offeror’s ability to meet FAA requirements.

FAA reserves the right to contact and verify past performance information with the references provided 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 that offerors have not had a previous opportunity to address.

See Tables 8-3, Past Performance Relevancy Ratings, 8-4, Past Performance Quality Assessment Ratings, and 8.5, Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings, below, for definitions used in Factor 3 - Past Performance evaluations.

M.7.4 Price Evaluation (Volume 2)

Proposals will be evaluated for reasonableness, and reviewed for completeness, consistency, and traceability, defined as follows:

• Reasonableness - The FAA will evaluate each price proposal for reasonableness IAW 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.

• 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.

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, and traceability.

Price proposals will not be scored or rated. The FAA reserves the right to perform price realism IAW 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.

Additionally, the FAA will verify that the Offeror’s proposed base labor rates (wages) and fringe benefit (Health & Welfare) dollars are no less than the applicable prevailing rates for the applicable DOL Wage Determinations and applicable Collective Bargaining Agreements.

For evaluation purposes, the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated by adding the total price for the base and all option periods.

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

The TEP will be the sum of all CLINs for all contract years:

(1) CLINs XXXX1 Basic Services. The sum of Offeror’s proposed Fixed Price per site per contract year.

(2) CLINs XXXX2 TAS. The extended price of 80 hours of Temporary Additional Services per site per contract year. The 80 hours of Temporary Additional Services per site per contract year will be applied to all offers to equally evaluate the potential for Temporary Additional Services.

(3) CLINs XXXX3 ESS. The extended price of16 labor hours of Emergency Security Services per site per contract year. The 16 hours of ESS per site per contract year will be applied to all offers to equally evaluate the potential for Emergency Security Services.

(4) CLINs XXXX4 Other Services (Time Not Worked). The extended price of 16 labor hours of Other Services per site per contract year. The 16 hours of Other Service (Time not Worked) per site per contract year will be applied to all offers to equally evaluate possible Training expenses.

(5) CLINs XXXX5 Training. The extended price of 80 labor hours of Training per site per contract year. The 80 hours of Training per site per contract year will be applied to all offers to equally evaluate possible Training expenses.

(6) CLINs XXXX6 Random Screening. The extended price of 48 labor hours of Random Screening Services per site per contract year. The 48 hours of Random Screening per site per contract year will be applied to all offers to equally evaluate the potential for Random Screening Services.

(7) CLINs XXXX7 Roving Patrol. The extended price of 1040 labor hours of Roving Patrol Services per site per contract year. The 1040 hours of Roving Patrol per site per contract year will be applied to all offers to equally evaluate the potential for Roving Patrol Services.

The extended price for each Labor Hour (LH) CLIN (XXXX2 through XXXX7) will be calculated by multiplying the government specified hours by the Offeror’s proposed fully burdened rate for each applicable CLIN. The specified hours are for evaluation purposes only and do not represent a commitment from the FAA.

[continued below]

M.8 DEFINITIONS/RATINGS

The following definitions listed in Tables M.8-1 will be used when evaluating Volume 3, Parts A-C (Factors 1-3, including subfactors).

Table M.8-1, Source Evaluation Definitions Term Definition

Strength

An aspect of a proposal that would positively impact performance of the resulting contract, exceed the minimum requirements, or otherwise benefit the Government. The area that exceeds the requirements stated in the statement of work. Also may contain enhancing features that provide supply or service above and beyond what is called for that benefit the Government

Weakness

An aspect of a proposal that would negatively impact performance of the resulting contract, fail to meet the minimum requirements, or otherwise harm the Government. A flaw that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance. A weakness is also an omission from the Offeror’s proposal that contributed to a deficiency in meeting the evaluation criteria or is otherwise a shortcoming of the proposal that has the potential to degrade contract performance. A weakness may be correctable through discussions and revisions.

Deficiency

A material failure to meet the requirement or a combination of weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level. Deficiencies are fatal errors that can’t be corrected, without major revisions.

Risk

An aspect an Offeror's proposal that presents an uncertainty as to the ability of the Offeror successfully to perform the required effort or the proposed approach. An aspect (e.g. cost, price, technical, performance or schedule) that would be possible if the Offeror is selected.

Clarification

Communication with an Offeror for the sole purpose of eliminating minor irregularities, informalities, ambiguities, or apparent clerical mistakes in its offer. It is achieved by explanation or substantiation, either in response to Government inquiry or as initiated by the Offeror.

Note: An ambiguity is a situation in which something can be understood in more than one way and it is not clear which meaning is intended.

Omission Information requested in the SIR that was not provided in the proposal.

An omission is not necessarily a deficiency if is not material in nature and the intent of the Offeror can be readily determined.

The following adjectival ratings listed in Table M.8-2 will be used when evaluating Volume 3, Part A (Factor 1 - Management Proposal) and Volume 3, Part B (Factor 2 - Technical Proposal).

Table M.8-2. Adjectival Ratings for Management and Technical Proposal Evaluations (Non-Cost/Price Factors)

Rating Definition

Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

The following ratings in Tables M.8-3, M8.4, and M.8.5 will be used when evaluating Volume 3, Part C (Factor 3 - Past Performance Confidence).

Table 8-3. Past Performance Relevancy Assessment Ratings Aspects of relevance include similarity of service/support provided, complexity of effort, dollar value, contract type, and, where applicable, the degree of subcontracting/teaming. To be relevant performance data needs to be recent as described in Section L of the RFP.

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

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

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

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

Table 8-4. Past Performance Quality Assessment Ratings Aspects of quality include how well an offeror meets or exceeds contractual requirements, how problems encountered in the course of contract performance were addressed, and the effectiveness of corrective actions taken.

Exceptional

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory

Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Table 8-5. Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

High Confidence Based on the Offeror’s past performance record, the Government has high expectation 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 a reasonable expectation 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 expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required efforts.

M.9 SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN EVALUATION RATINGS

(APPLIES TO OTHER-THAN-SMALL BUSINESSES ONLY)

The evaluation of Small Business Subcontracting Plans will be based upon the degree to which Other-than-Small (OTS) Business Offerors plan meets the requirements identified in Section L.9.4.3.D Volume 3, Part D – Small Business Subcontracting Plan and AMS clause 3.6.1-4, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

The Government will also 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. Offeror submissions will be assessed on an individual basis; there will be no comparison of Offerors to reach the volume-level ratings. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan evaluation will be evaluated as defined in the table below.

This is applicable only to OTS Businesses whose proposals include the use of subcontractors.

The submission of a Small Business Subcontracting Plan is not required for small businesses and therefore small businesses will not receive a rating for this factor.

Table 9-1. Small Business Subcontracting Plan Evaluation Rating Definitions Rating Definition

Acceptable The OTS Offeror’s response demonstrates a viable small business subcontracting plan that meets the specified subcontracting goals or the AMS content requirements.

Unacceptable The OTS Offeror’s response does not demonstrate a viable small business subcontracting plan and does not meet the specified subcontracting goals or the AMS content requirements.

Neutral The OTS Offeror will self-perform and does not propose a small business subcontracting plan. Neither acceptable nor unacceptable.

M.10 COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING CONTRACT AWARD

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

A written award or acceptance of offer mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful Offeror within the time for acceptance specified on the offer must result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer whether or not there are communications after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award. Communications conducted after receipt of an offer do not constitute a rejection or counteroffer by the Government.

The Government may disclose the following information in post-award debriefings to unsuccessful Offerors:

(1) The Contracting Officer’s decision,

(2) The Offeror’s evaluated ratings relative to those of the successful Offeror, and

(3) A summary of the evaluation findings related to the Offeror who requested the debriefing.

(End of Section M)

The remainder of this page has been intentionally left blank.