16 6973GH-23-R-00198-0001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ.NO.

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended , by one of the following methods: (a) By completing

Items 8 and 15, and returning is extended, is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required.)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

(x) A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14.

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

1 1

0001 09/21/2023

AAQ-721 LOGISTICS CENTER ACQ

FAA AERONAUTICAL CENTER

PO BOX 25082

MPB ROOM 312

AAQ0721-AFN

OKLAHOMA CITY OK 73125

AAQ-721 LOGISTICS CENTER ACQ

FAA AERONAUTICAL CENTER

PO BOX 25082

MPB ROOM 312

AAQ721-AFN

OKLAHOMA CITY OK 73125

x

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment number. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT

THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted , such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted ; or (c) By ___________ x x

6973GH-23-R-00198

copies to the issuing office.

09/21/2023

(x)

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. CONTRACT AUTHORITY 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

Jason M. Perry

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9 A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect .

LIST OF CHANGES:

The purpose of this amendment is to replace the Wage Determination, update clause 3.6.1-17, incorporate Questions and Answers, and update section L and M as follows;

FIRST: Wage Determination version 20 is hereby replaced with Wage Determination version 21.

SECOND: Clause 3.6.1-17 NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (NAICS) CODE (OCT 2022) is hereby updated:

From: The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this procurement is:

541990.

The small business size standard as defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) is the following:

For NAICS codes based on SBA's calculation of annual receipts, the annual average receipts cannot exceed $15M.

For NAICS codes based on the number of employees, the average number of employees over the last 24-month period cannot exceed [ ].

(End of provision)

To: The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this procurement is:

541330.

The small business size standard as defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) is the following:

For NAICS codes based on SBA's calculation of annual receipts, the annual average receipts cannot exceed $25.5M.

For NAICS codes based on the number of employees, the average number of employees over the last 24-month period cannot exceed [ ].

(End of provision)

THIRD: Questions and Answers are hereby incorporated.

FOURTH: Section L is hereby updated as follows:

L.1 SET-ASIDE RESTRICTION – SEDB/8(a) This procurement is a total set-aside and is restricted for competition among Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Business concerns (SEDB) with valid 8(a) certification. Offerors must submit a letter from the U.S.

Small Business Administration (SBA) recognizing the firm as a participant in the U.S. SBA 8(a) business development program.

L.2 POINT OF CONTACT

The procurement Contracting Officer (PCO), Jason Perry, is the sole point of contact for this acquisition. Do not contact the program office or program office personnel at any time regarding this acquisition. All written requests, correspondence, and submittals must be sent to the contract specialist via email at jason.m.perry@faa.gov. All Offeror questions, concerns, and clarification requests must be made in writing and submitted within ten (10) calendar days of the release of the SIR. Written inquiries received within this timeframe will be answered in writing and provided to all Offerors prior to the required date for submittal of the Offeror proposals. The agency reserves the right to not answer any requests received outside of the above timeframe. Furthermore, Offerors should note that the proposal due date will not be extended solely on the basis of questions received within or beyond the timeframe mentioned above. The FAA will not provide verbal responses to Offeror questions, concerns, and clarification requests initiated via Offeror telephone calls.

L.3 PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

Each offeror shall submit information identified in the volumes as forth in Table L.3-1 below. Page limitations should be treated as maximums. The data submitted should be complete, concise, and relevant to the requirements of the SIR and are required to be submitted in the format outlined below.

Table L.3-1 Proposal Volume Requirements

Volume Number

Volume Title Part Part Title Page Limit

Number of Copies mailto:jason.m.perry@faa.gov

I Contract /

SIR N/A

All Pages Sections A through M

N/A Original

I Factor 1 60 Pages Original

II

Technical Approach II

Factor 2 including Sub-factors

NOTE:

Resumes and Exhibits

Original

III Factor 3

Do NOT count in Page Limitation but should be tabbed and labeled as an attachment to appropriate factor/sub-factors

Original

III

Past Performance

N/A N/A N/A Original

I

Completed Section B

N/A Original

IV Cost/ Price

II

Excel Spreadsheet Cost/Price proposal

N/A Original

Note: No references to price shall be made in volume II.

L.4 PROPOSAL FORMATTING INSTRUCTIONS

1) No smaller than one (1) inch margins around the perimeter of each sheet of paper.

2) If printing is on both sides of the paper, it will be counted as two pages.

3) Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches.

4) Single or double spacing (offeror’s option)

5) Font: no smaller than 10 point. Times New Roman or Arial style font preferred.

6) Each proposal must be submitted in bound volumes as defined in the above table. A cover sheet must be affixed to each volume, which clearly identifies each volume, volume number, the SIR identification number, and the Offeror’s name. Each volume must be separately bound.

7) A Footer shall be included on the bottom of each page identifying the volume number, page number, and total number of pages.

8) Tab indexing shall be used to identify all proposal sections. Each volume shall be organized in a manner that will facilitate an efficient review.

9) All volumes should be marked ‘Procurement Sensitive’ (Exception: Volume 1: Contract/SIR Documentation)

10) All volumes shall be submitted to the Contracting Officer not later than the proposal due date and time.

11) Offerors must clearly TAB each technical evaluation factor and sub-factor separately. Any support documentation such as Resumes or Exhibits shall be tabbed as an attachment to the appropriate factor or sub-factor and do not count towards the page limitation.

L.5 CONTRACT /SIR DOCUMENTATION- VOLUME I

This volume will provide necessary documentation to the FAA for preparing the contract document and supporting file. This shall include all SIR pages Section A through K. Offerors must complete, sign, and date ‘Section A, SF-

33, Solicitation, Offer and Award blocks 13 through 17. Contractor fill-ins are self-explanatory. The SF-33, block 16 must be signed by an agent of the company authorized to make the offer. Offerors must complete all Contact Line Items (CLINs) and extended totals in Section B and complete all required clause fill-ins in all Sections of the SIR. In addition, the offeror must include a copy of their SBA 8(a) certification letter. Offerors must clearly identify an exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Offerors shall provide the Name, Title, Email, and Telephone number of the company point of contact regarding decisions made with respect to your proposal and who possesses the authority to obligate your company contractually.

L.6 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL- VOLUME II

The contractor shall submit a written technical proposal describing their abilities to provide the required services identified in the Performance Work Statement. The technical proposal must validate the technical evaluation factors and subfactors described herein. The technical proposal must be specific and in sufficient detail to enable an evaluation team to make a thorough evaluation to determine if the proposed services meet the requirements of the Government and to determine that the offeror has a thorough understanding of the requirement. Responses will be evaluated against the evaluation factors as defined in Section M.

FACTOR 1: UNDERSTANDING THE REQUIREMENTS

Offerors shall describe their understanding of the required staffing needs. Offerors must explain their understanding of project management, administrative responsibilities, and capability and process of providing qualified and experienced personnel to fulfill the requirements of the PWS Section 4 Requirements/Tasks/Qualifications. Identify the anticipated staff, their responsibilities or delegated authority and describe the rationale for this structure. Fully describe the process which will accomplish contract administration and invoicing. Offerors shall provide their understanding of the requirement to maintain a viable training program as set forth in PWS Section 2.10 Training, as well as demonstrate that the personnel possess the qualifications necessary to perform the tasks. When including exhibits, provide an explanation of how the exhibit was validated.

FACTOR 2: UNDERSTANDING MANAGEMENT AND KEY PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS

Purpose: To evaluate the offeror’s management plan for the management of the organization and for the qualifications of key personnel, specifically the Contract Manager PWS Section 4.2.1, Project Management Plan PWS Section 5.1.1, Staffing Plan PWS Section 5.1.2, and processing and control of work in accordance with the PWS Section 2.2 – Contractor Employee Supervision; Section 4 Requirements/Tasks/Qualifications.

Resumes should describe background, experience, education, publications, licenses, certifications, and professional recognition. At a minimum resume should be provided for the Contract Manager and Project Analyst and a sampling of resumes for the Drafter, Lean Six Sigma Quality Improvement Specialist, Logistics Specialist, Management and Program Analyst, Project Management Specialist, Civil/Structural Engineer, Industrial Engineer, Electrical/Electronics Engineer, and Mechanical Engineering positions.

Identify the following elements for the Contract Manager: limits of authority, span of control, teaming arrangement, grouping of functions and external support. Offerors must provide information on the approach to be taken to respond effectively to changes in shifts or changes in workload levels, changes necessitating by directives, or unexpected requirements for new task assignments.

SUB-FACTOR 2.1: KEY MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION AND QUALIFICATIONS

The offeror must demonstrate overall successful project management, qualifications of proposed Contract Manager (PWS 4.2.1 Contract Manager and 4.2.1.1 Contract Manager Qualifications) the degree of autonomy and delegation(s) of authority and responsibility for the management organization and to evaluate the submitted resumes of the Contract Manager, and Project Analyst and a sampling of resumes for the Drafter, Lean Six Sigma Quality Improvement Specialist, Logistics Specialist, Management and Program Analyst, Project Management Specialist, Civil/Structural Engineer, Industrial Engineer, Electrical/Electronics Engineer, and Mechanical Engineering positions.

SUB-FACTOR 2.2: QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM

In accordance with the PWS Section 5.1.3 and as outlined in the solicitation, the offeror shall establish and maintain a documented quality control program that ensures all tasks are performed and delivered in accordance with the assigned Task Orders at an acceptable qualify level with appropriate Contract Management team oversight to achieve successful quality performance. This program shall include a scheduled and controlled plan of oversight integrating all necessary procedures, controls, and inspections, required to substantiate task delivery quality, including any related documentation. Include actual exhibits whenever possible and explain how the exhibit has been validated.

SUB-FACTOR 2.3: PROCESSING AND CONTROL OF WORK

The offeror must provide a plan for processing, control, and documentation of work applicable to the services to be performed to ensure work is completed timely and in accordance with the PWS Section 5.2. Specifically, the submittal shall demonstrate the offeror’s approach and methodology to processing, control, and documentation of work as required in PWS Sections 5.2.1 Monthly Status/Progress Report, PWS 5.2.2 Contract Invoicing and Reports, PWS Section 5.2.3 Damage Reports, PWS Section 5.2.4 Incident Reporting, and PWS Section 5.2.5 Assigned Work Tasks Documentation.

FACTOR 3: ORGANIZATIONAL EXPERIENCE

The offeror must provide information as defined below for past and current contractual efforts with requirements similar in operational and technical complexity to services described in the PWS. Contracts considered to be relevant will demonstrate similar magnitudes of effort and complexities necessary to successfully accomplish the scope of work in PWS Section 1.3, Section 2, and Section 4. The information evaluated will be the same information used to evaluate past performance, as shown below.

Company Name

a. Program Title

b. Name of Customer and address

c. Contract Number

d. Contract Type

e. Points of Contact (POC)

f. Contracting Officer: Name/Telephone/Email/Fax

g. Program Officer: Name/Telephone/Email/Fax

h. Period of Performance

i. Offeror’s Role (Prime, Subcontractor including percentage of dollar value of subcontract work)

j. Total Contract Ceiling

k. Relationship of this task to the PWS requirements in this SIR/RFO (dollar value and complexity) The offeror shall submit the above information for a minimum of three (3) but no more than five (5) past and current contracts/subcontracts in response to this factor. The minimum requirement will include:

1. Contracts that are similar to the dollar value and complexity of FAALC requirement as described in the PWS Section 1.3, Section 2, and Section 4.

2. Three contracts valued at over $5,000,000 where the offeror is the prime contractor or the offeror’s subcontracting efforts represented $5,000,000 or more of the entire contract.

3. Projects submitted have been completed or underway within the last five years.

L.7 PAST PERFORMANCE – VOLUME III

The Offeror must provide the following information for a minimum of three (3) contracts that are taking place at the current time, or has performance occurring within the last five (5) years that involve similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities as this Performance Work Statement requires.

a. Company Name

1. Program Title

2. Name of Customer and address

3. Contract Number

4. Contract Type

5. Points of Contact (POC)

6. Contracting Officer: Name/Telephone/Email/Fax

7. Program Officer: Name/Telephone/Email/Fax

8. Period of Performance

9. Offeror’s Role (Prime, Subcontractor including percentage of dollar value of subcontract work)

10. Total Contract Ceiling

11. Relationship of this task to the PWS requirements in this SIR/RFO (dollar value and complexity)

12. Project Description

Additionally, the offeror shall complete and forward Attachment #3 ‘Sample Client Authorization Letter’ to those clients identified in the Contracts Listing described above along with Attachment #4 ‘Past Performance Survey’ for the client to complete. As stated in the ‘Sample Client Authorization Letter’, the client shall complete and submit the ‘Past Performance Questionnaire’ directly to the FAA Contracting Officer at the email address below:

Jason.m.pery@faa.gov.

Offerors are requested to provide evidence of submission of Questionnaires to the respective clients by providing documentation in Volume III to include the following:

1) Copy of Sample Client Authorization letter

2) Copy of Past Performance Questionnaire with Section I completed

3) Email correspondence (if applicable)

5) Any other documentation to evidence submission

L.8 COST/PRICE PROPOSAL – VOLUME IV

(a) Offerors shall sum all proposed prices by contract year, to derive a Total Estimated Price for the proposal (Base Period and All Option Periods) using the estimated or supplied quantities, and submit a complete Section B.

(b) For each CLIN listed in Section B, Offerors shall propose fully burdened labor rates, by labor category.

Offerors must provide CLIN pricing based on the unit price and the total price for each line item.

(c) For each CLIN that includes an estimated quantity, Offerors are instructed to submit proposed pricing using the estimated quantity provided. For each CLIN that includes an Estimated Extended Total Amount (such as Reimbursable Travel and Other Direct Costs / Materials), offerors are instructed to include these amounts in the totals for the base, each option year, and the final total estimated amount.

(d) Please ensure all of the proposed, fully-loaded labor hour rates are calculated to two decimal places.

(e) All proposed cost and price information shall be submitted in the Cost/Price Volume. No references shall be made to proposed costs or prices in Volume II.

(f) Offerors shall provide a valid cover letter in the Cost/Price Volume which includes the total proposed amounts by contract year and the total proposed contract amount for all years.

(g) In addition to an individual binder/folder for the Cost/Price proposal, a proposed Cost/Price data file (Schedule B) must be submitted electronically via email. The file shall be prepared in an Excel compatible format, MS-Excel 2003 or later.

(h) Within all Excel spreadsheets, Offerors shall include all proposed formulas and calculations rounded to two (2) decimal places. Offerors shall avoid using ‘value only’ type cells to the maximum extent possible. If links are utilized within the spreadsheets, the Offeror shall supply all linked or referenced files. Spreadsheets and/or individual cells shall not be protected. A separate tab of the worksheet should be provide for each option year.

(i) The offeror shall describe any assumptions used to develop the proposed prices.

Note: The Government anticipates that pricing of this requirement will be based on adequate price competition; if however, competition does not materialize, the Contracting Officer may require upon request ‘other than certified cost and pricing’ supporting data deemed necessary to adequately evaluate the reasonableness of the price after receipt of proposals.

L. 9 COMMUNICATIONS WITH OFFERORS

All reference documents for this solicitation are available on the Sam.gov web site at http://sam.gov. Potential offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time e-mail notifications when information has been posted to the website for this solicitation.

Specific attention is invited to AMS paragraph 3.2.2.3.1.2.2, Communications with Offerors. The FAA may communicate with one or more Offerors at any time during the SIR process. Communications with one offeror does not necessitate communications with other offerors, since communications may be offeror-specific. Information determined to have common application and not considered prejudicial to offerors will be communication to all offerors.

L.10 SUBMISSION OF OFFERS

All offers are subject to all terms and conditions set forth and contained in this SIR. If all requested information is not furnished in the offeror’s proposal, the offeror’s proposal may be determined to be non-responsive and ineligible for contract award. Only one proposal from each offeror shall be considered. The FAA reserves the right to consider as acceptable only those proposals submitted in accordance with the requirements set forth in the SIR/RFO which demonstrate an understanding of the complexity and scope of the requirements. The FAA further reserves the right to reject, as unacceptable, proposals deleting or altering technical requirements.

http://sam.gov/

CAUTION – Late Submissions, Modifications, and Withdrawals: See Section L, AMS Provision 3.2.2.3-14. All offers are subject to all terms and conditions set forth and contained in this solicitation. Electronic submissions are acceptable; however, the original and required copies of the proposals must be received by the due date and time specified.

L.11 PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMITTAL COSTS

This SIR is not to be construed as a contract or a commitment of any kind. The Government and/or the FAA shall not be liable for payment of, nor reimburse offerors or contractors for any and all costs incurred in the preparation and/or submittal of a proposal in response to this SIR or resultant task order. All proposal preparation and submittal costs are at the risk of the offeror or contractor.

L.12 DISPOSITION OF UNSUCCESSFUL PROPOSALS

Submitted Proposals will not be returned to the offeror. Proposal originals will be retained in the contract file.

L.13 DEBRIFING OF UNSUCCESSFUL OFFERORS

Written notice of award to unsuccessful Offerors will be provided within three (3) business days of contract award.

Successful or unsuccessful offerors may request a debriefing by providing a written request to the CO within three

(3) business days after receiving the notice of award. Debriefing will be conducted only after completion of source selection activities and award of contract. All Offerors who notify the CO within three (3) business days of receipt of the award notification are entitled to a debriefing. The FAA will make every effort to provide the debriefing within two weeks after receipt of the request for debriefing.

FIFTH: Section M is hereby updated as follows:

M.1 SOURCE SELECTION GENERAL INFORMATION

M.2 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This source selection will be conducted in accordance with the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Acquisition Management System (AMS). It is the FAA’s intent to award a contract to the Offeror whose proposal is judged to represent the best value to the FAA. The best value is defined as the proposal that presents the most advantageous solution to the FAA, based on the evaluation of technical, past performance, cost/price, and other factors specified in the SIR.

The best value approach will utilize technical, past performance, and cost/price trade-offs 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 the ultimate award may be to either one of those offerors. Furthermore, the FAA does not intend to make an award to an offeror who proposes a significantly higher overall price to achieve a slightly superior technical approach. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSO will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

As set forth in AMS 3.2.2.3-19 Contract Award (July 2004), the Government reserves the right to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. Be advised that the competitive range, if required, may be reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to AMS 3.2.2.3.

Proposals must be submitted in accordance with the instructions of Section L. Proposals not submitted in accordance with Section L may be considered nonresponsive and removed from further consideration. Upon receipt of proposals, the Government will conduct an initial evaluation. The Government may conduct communications with offerors whose exclusion from or inclusion in the competitive range is uncertain. Communications shall not provide an opportunity for any offeror to revise its proposal.

M.3 NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

The Government intends to select one contractor for this acquisition. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of proposals, prices submitted and the availability of funds.

Multiple awards will not be considered.

M.4 REJECTION OF UNREALISTIC OFFERS

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program requirements, contract terms and conditions, or an unrealistically high or low price when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

M.5 CORRECTION POTENTIAL OF PROPOSALS

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the ‘correction potential’ of any proposal uncertainty. The judgment of such ‘correction potential’ is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror’s proposal not meeting the Government’s requirements is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from further consideration.

M.6 ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARD

An offeror must be determined responsible to be eligible for award. To be eligible for award, the contractor must be technically and financially capable of performing the work.

M. 7 EVALUATION PROCESS

Each proposal will be evaluated on the basis of its written submissions, including cost/price information. Separate technical, past performance, and cost/price proposal volumes are required as described in Section L. Proposals must be submitted in accordance with the instruction of Section L.

M.8 EVALUATION FACTORS

The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

FACTOR 1: UNDERSTANDING THE REQUIREMENTS

FACTOR 2: UNDERSTANDING THE MANAGEMENT PLAN

SUB-FACTOR 2.1: KEY MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION AND QUALIFICATIONS

SUB-FACTOR 2.2: QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM

SUB-FACTOR 2.3: PROCESSING AND CONTROL OF WORK

FACTOR 3: ORGANIZATIONAL EXPERIENCE

FACTOR 4: PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 5: COST/PRICE . Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated and applied in the best value determination but will not be scored.

M.9 ORDER OF IMPORTANCE FOR EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS

As stated in Section M of the SIR/RFO, evaluation factors in order of importance are:

1. Factor 2: Understanding the Management Plan

(Within Factor 2: sub-factor 2.3 is more important than 2.1 and 2.2, and 2.1 is more important than 2.2)

1. Factor 1: Understanding the Requirements

2. Factor 3: Organizational Experience

3. Past Performance

All technical factors 1 through 3 and Past Performance combined are significantly more important than cost/price.

The offer that provides the overall “best value” to the Government will be selected. Therefore, the successful offer may not necessarily have the lowest price. The price may become relatively more important if the difference in technical scores and past performance ratings is minimal.

M.10 SCORING METHODOLOGY

The FAA will rate technical proposals (Factors 1, Factor 2 including subfactors 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3, and Factor 3) using the numerical rating scale corresponding to a 4-point scale defined below:

Rating Numerical Description

Excellent 3.0

The proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weakness. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good 2.0

The proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains strengths, which outweigh any weakness. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Satisfactory 1.0

The proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of 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.

Unsatisfactory 0.0 The proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. The proposal is un-awardable.

M.11 TECHNICAL APPROACH – VOLUME II

The proposal shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. General statements that the Offeror understands the requirements of the work to be performed, or simple rephrasing or restating of the FAA’s requirements, will not be considered adequate and will be reflected in lower evaluation scores or may be cause for rejection of the proposal. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience, and will base its evaluation solely on the information presented in the offeror’s proposal. The Government will not assume that an Offeror possesses any capabilities not specified in the written proposal.

The following factors, Factor 1, Factor 2 comprised of sub-factors 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3, and Factor 3 will be considered in the evaluation of the Technical Approach proposal, Volume II:

FACTOR 1: UNDERSTANDING THE REQUIREMENTS

Purpose: To assess the offeror’s understanding of the requirements to provide a qualified workforce, required staffing, and ability to maintain necessary training in accordance with the PWS.

Offerors shall describe their understanding of the required staffing needs. Offerors must explain their understanding of project management, administrative responsibilities, and capability and process of providing qualified and experienced personnel to fulfill the requirements of the PWS Section 4 Requirements/Tasks/Qualifications. Identify the anticipated staff, their responsibilities or delegated authority and describe the rationale for this structure. Fully describe the process which will accomplish contract administration and invoicing. Offerors shall provide their understanding of the requirement to maintain a viable training program as set forth in PWS Section 2.10 Training, as well as demonstrate that the personnel possess the qualifications necessary to perform the tasks. When including exhibits, provide an explanation of how the exhibit was validated. This factor shall be evaluated using the four measurements listed in Section M.10.

Excellent – 3.0 The offeror’s submittal details the approach and methodology utilized to provide highly qualified individuals IAW the requirements for the positions as set forth in the PWS Section 4 Requirements/Tasks/Qualifications. The offeror demonstrates the ability to effectively maintain highly effective training and detailed education records for personnel as set forth in PWS Section 2.10 Training. The information presented in the PWS Section 5.1.2 Staffing Plan clearly demonstrates there is virtually no risk that the offeror will be unable to provide highly qualified personnel to ensure that each project is completed in a timely and efficient manner. The offeror’s strengths far outweigh any weaknesses identified.

Good – 2.0 The offeror’s submittal details the procedures utilized to provide qualified individuals IAW the requirements for the positions as set forth in PWS Section 4 Requirements/Tasks/Qualifications. The offeror demonstrates the ability to maintain training and education records for personnel as set forth in the PWS Section

2.10 Training. The information provided in the PWS Section 5.1.2 Staffing Plan demonstrates there is a low risk that the offeror will be unable to provide qualified personnel to ensure that each project is completed in a timely and efficient manner. The offeror’s strengths outweigh any weaknesses noted.

Satisfactory – 1.0 The offeror addresses the procedures utilized to provide qualified individuals IAW the requirements for the positions as set forth in PWS Section 4 Requirements/Tasks/Qualifications. The offeror provides minimally sufficient data to demonstrate a satisfactory ability to effectively maintain training and education records for personnel as set forth in PWS Section 2.10 Training. The information provided in the PWS Section 5.1.2 Staffing Plan does not demonstrate that the offeror will consistently be able to provide qualified personnel to ensure that each project is completed in a timely and efficient manner. The offerors strengths and weaknesses offset each other. There is a moderate risk that the offeror will be unable to provide qualified personnel to ensure that each project is completed in a timely and efficient manner.

Unsatisfactory – 0.0 The offeror fails to address at least one aspect of the evaluation factor or if all factors are addressed, the submittal displays a lack of confidence and/or is illogical demonstrating an extreme weakness or deficiency in understanding. The response fails to adequately identify the competency or capability to meet the PWS requirements as outlined in Section 4, 2.10 and 5.1.2. Weaknesses and/or deficiencies are noted and indicate performance will likely fail to meet PWS requirements. The offeror is a high risk for non-performance in providing qualified personnel to ensure each project is completed in a timely and efficient manner.

FACTOR 2- UNDERSTANDING MANAGEMENT AND KEY PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS

Purpose: To evaluate the offeror’s management plan for the management of the organization and for the qualifications of key personnel, specifically the Contract Manager PWS Section 4.2.1, Project Management Plan PWS Section 5.1.1, Staffing Plan PWS Section 5.1.2, and processing and control of work in accordance with the

PWS Section 2.2 – Contractor Employee Supervision; Section 4 Requirements/Tasks/Qualifications.

Resumes should describe background, experience, education, publications, licenses, certifications, and professional recognition. At a minimum resume should be provided for the Contract Manager and Project Analyst and a sampling of resumes for the Drafter, Lean Six Sigma Quality Improvement Specialist, Logistics Specialist, Management and Program Analyst, Project Management Specialist, Civil/Structural Engineer, Industrial Engineer, Electrical/Electronics Engineer, and Mechanical Engineering positions.

Identify the following elements for the Contract Manager: limits of authority, span of control, teaming arrangement, grouping of functions and external support. Offerors must provide information on the approach to be taken to respond effectively to changes in shifts or changes in workload levels, changes necessitating by directives, or unexpected requirements for new task assignments.

SUB-FACTOR 2.1: KEY MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION AND QUALIFICATIONS

The offeror must demonstrate overall successful project management, qualifications of proposed Contract Manager (PWS 4.2.1 Contract Manager and 4.2.1.1 Contract Manager Qualifications) the degree of autonomy and delegation(s) of authority and responsibility for the management organization and to evaluate the submitted resumes of the Contract Manager, and Project Analyst and a sampling of resumes for the Drafter, Lean Six Sigma Quality Improvement Specialist, Logistics Specialist, Management and Program Analyst, Project Management Specialist, Civil/Structural Engineer, Industrial Engineer, Electrical/Electronics Engineer, and Mechanical Engineering positions.

Excellent – 3.0 The offeror’s submittal addresses the PWS Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.1.1 requirements for project management and responsibilities under the purview of the Contract Manager. Coordination is described for internal operations, and for external corporate support that is necessary to meet or resolve project management issues. The submittal clearly demonstrates in detail the offeror’s ability to provide high quality, qualified, technically proficient personnel. Project management includes identifying accountability for work assignments involving a technical staff comprised of various types of technical personnel. Exhibits represent the methodology and identify flexibility or ability to adjust to change. The required resumes as well as a full sampling of other resumes were submitted, all were complete, and provided personnel who exceeded stated requirements in the PWS Sections 4.3 through 4.4. The offeror demonstrated there is a very low risk of not achieving successful delivery of highly qualified personnel and their strengths far outweigh any weaknesses noted.

Good – 2.0 The offeror’s submittal addresses the PWS Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.1.1 requirements for project management and responsibilities under the purview of the Contract Manager. Coordination is described for internal operations, and for external corporate support that is necessary to meet or resolve project management issues. The submittal demonstrates the offeror’s ability to provide qualified personnel. Project management includes identifying accountability for work assignments involving a technical staff comprised of various types of engineering and logistic personnel. The required resumes and a sampling of others were submitted and were complete meeting the requirements in the PWS Sections 4.3 through 4.4. The strengths noted outweigh any weaknesses. The offeror demonstrated there is a low risk of not achieving successful delivery of highly qualified personnel.

Satisfactory – 1.0 The offeror’s submittal vaguely addresses the PWS Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.1.1 requirements for project management or responsibilities under the purview of the Contract Manager. The response fails to address accountability for work assignments associated with effective management engineering and logistics support services. The submittal does not clearly demonstrate the ability to provide qualified personnel. The required resumes submitted do not contain sufficient information to determine that the personnel will satisfy the requirements stated in the PWS Sections 4.3 through 4.4. The offeror demonstrated there is a moderate risk of not achieving successful delivery of highly qualified personnel as a result of their strengths and weaknesses being relatively equal.

Unsatisfactory – 0.0 The response fails to adequately identify the competency or capability to meet the PWS Section 4.2.1 and 4.2.1.1 requirements. Weaknesses and/or deficiencies are noted and indicate performance will likely fail to meet PWS requirements. Not all required resumes were submitted or those that were submitted were incomplete. The offeror is a high risk for non-performance in delivery of highly qualified personnel.

SUB-FACTOR 2.2: QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM

In accordance with the PWS Section 5.1.3 and as outlined in the solicitation, the offeror shall establish and maintain a documented quality control program that ensures all tasks are performed and delivered in accordance with the assigned Task Orders at an acceptable qualify level with appropriate Contract Management team oversight to achieve successful quality performance. This program shall include a scheduled and controlled plan of oversight integrating all necessary procedures, controls, and inspections, required to substantiate task delivery quality, including any related documentation. Include actual exhibits whenever possible and explain how the exhibit has been validated.

Excellent – 3.0 The offeror’s quality control plan addresses in full detail the authority invested in the key members of management, the supervision of functional areas, quality control and subcontract support. A highly effective method for tracking and controlling assigned workload is described. The submittal includes a complete, fully detailed description of the ability to respond to shifts and changes in workload, task assignments, and quality issues.

The managerial grouping of functions, external support (i.e., partnering, or subcontracting arrangements) and quality control is described to support these requirements. Exhibits represent the planned approach and identify how the quality control will be implemented in full and complete detail. The offeror’s quality control plan exceeds the requirements of PWS Section 5.1.3 and demonstrates a very low risk for not being achieved with their strengths far outweighing any weaknesses noted.

Good – 2.0 The offeror’s quality control plan addresses the authority invested in the key members of management, the supervision of functional areas, quality control and subcontract support. An effective method for tracking and controlling assigned workload is described. The submittal includes the ability to respond to shifts and changes in workload, task assignments, and quality issues. The managerial grouping of functions, external support (i.e., partnering, or subcontracting arrangements) and quality control is described to support these requirements. The offeror’s quality control plan meets the requirements of PWS Section 5.1.3 with a demonstrated low risk of not being achieved as a result of their strengths outweighing any weaknesses noted.

Satisfactory – 1.0 The offeror addresses management’s authority, the supervision of functional areas, subcontract support, or quality control. The span of quality control is not defined in a manner that allows evaluators to determine if the quality control plan can be fully met due to the level of strengths and weaknesses noted offsetting each other. The offeror’s plan demonstrates a satisfactory response to the requirements of PWS Section 5.1.3 with a moderate risk for a successful quality control program.

Unsatisfactory – 0.0 The response fails to adequately identify the competency or capability to meet the PWS requirements. Weaknesses and/or deficiencies are noted and indicate performance that will likely fail to meet PWS Section 5.1.3 requirements. The offeror is a high risk for not having an acceptable quality control program.

SUB-FACTOR 2.3: PROCESSING, CONTROL, AND DOCUMENTATION OF WORK

The offeror must provide a plan for processing, control, and documentation of work applicable to the services to be performed to ensure work is completed timely and in accordance with the PWS Section 5.2. Specifically, the submittal shall demonstrate the offeror’s approach and methodology to processing, control, and documentation of work as required in PWS Sections 5.2.1 Monthly Status/Progress Report, PWS 5.2.2 Contract Invoicing and Reports, PWS Section 5.2.3 Damage Reports, PWS Section 5.2.4 Incident Reporting, and PWS Section 5.2.5 Assigned Work Tasks Documentation.

Excellent – 3.0 Processing and control of work plan submitted clearly and concisely describes a detailed plan for processing and controlling, work to ensure that work is completed timely and in accordance with the PWS Sections

5.2.1 Monthly Status/Progress Report, PWS 5.2.2 Contract Invoicing and Reports, PWS Section 5.2.3 Damage Reports, PWS Section 5.2.4 Incident Reporting, and PWS Section 5.2.5 Assigned Work Tasks Documentation. The plan clearly and in complete detail demonstrates the offer’s approach and methodology of how the offeror will process, control, and document work applicable to the services to be performed electronically and how this data will be transmitted to and be inspected by the government to ensure compliance with the work requirements and accurate submission of billing hours, travel, and other expenses. The Contractor’s approach has a very low risk of not being performed successfully with their strengths far outweighing any weaknesses noted.

Good – 2.0 Processing and control of work plan submitted adequately describe a plan for processing and controlling work to ensure work is completed timely and in accordance with the PWS Sections 5.2.1 Monthly Status/Progress Report, PWS 5.2.2 Contract Invoicing and Reports, PWS Section 5.2.3 Damage Reports, PWS Section 5.2.4 Incident Reporting, and PWS Section 5.2.5 Assigned Work Tasks Documentation. The information provided demonstrates the offeror’s ability to satisfy the requirements stated in the PWS. The Contractor’s approach has a low risk of not being performed successfully as a result of their strengths outweighing any weaknesses noted.

Satisfactory – 1.0 Processing and control of work plan submitted describes a plan which may ensure work is completed and in accordance with the PWS Sections 5.2.1 Monthly Status/Progress Report, PWS 5.2.2 Contract Invoicing and Reports, PWS Section 5.2.3 Damage Reports, PWS Section 5.2.4 Incident Reporting, and PWS Section 5.2.5 Assigned Work Tasks Documentation. The information provided has both strengths and weaknesses that are offsetting that indicates their plan for processing and controlling of work may be sufficient to satisfy the requirements as stated in the PWS with moderate risk for achievement.

Unsatisfactory – 0.0 The response fails to adequately identify the competency or capability to meet the PWS requirements. Weaknesses and/or deficiencies are noted and indicate performance will likely fail to meet PWS requirements. The offeror is a high risk for not having an acceptable plan for processing and controlling work.

FACTOR 3- ORGANIZATIONAL EXPERIENCE

The offeror must provide information as defined below for past and current contractual efforts with requirements similar in operational and technical complexity to services described in the PWS. Contracts considered to be relevant will demonstrate similar magnitudes of effort and complexities necessary to successfully accomplish the scope of work in PWS Section 1.3, Section 2, and Section 4. The information evaluated will be the same information used to evaluate past performance, as shown below.

Company Name

l. Program Title

m. Name of Customer and address

n. Contract Number

o. Contract Type

p. Points of Contact (POC)

q. Contracting Officer: Name/Telephone/Email/Fax

r. Program Officer: Name/Telephone/Email/Fax

s. Period of Performance

t. Offeror’s Role (Prime, Subcontractor including percentage of dollar value of subcontract work)

u. Total Contract Ceiling

v. Relationship of this task to the PWS requirements in this SIR/RFO (dollar value and complexity)

w. Project Description The offeror shall submit the above information for a minimum of three (3) but no more than five (5) past and current contracts/subcontracts in response to this factor. The minimum requirement will include:

1. Contracts that are similar to the dollar value and complexity of FAALC requirement as described in the PWS Section 1.3, Section 2, and Section 4.

2. Three contracts valued at over $5,000,000 where the offeror is the prime contractor or the offeror’s subcontracting efforts represented $5,000,000 or more of the entire contract.

3. Projects submitted have been completed or underway within the last five years.

The SET will review the project experience of the offeror, including subcontractors, on the information provided by the offeror. This factor shall be evaluated using the ratings below:

Excellent – 3.0 The offeror submitted information for more than three past or current contracts, with more than three of the projects valued at over $5,000,000. All of the experience was completed or commenced within the past five years. All of the information submitted is similar in operational and technical complexity to the work detailed in the PWS Section 1.3, Section 2, and Section 4. All of the contracts reflect a connection to the work outlined in the PWS, as well as demonstrate similar magnitudes of effort and complexities necessary to successfully accomplish the scope of work. There is a very low risk that the contractor does not have the necessary organizational experience.

Good – 2.0 The offeror submitted information for three past or current contracts, with three of the projects valued at over $5,000,000. All of the experience was completed or commenced within the past five years. The contracts/subcontracts are similar in operational and technical complexity to the work detailed in the PWS Section 1.3, Section 2, and Section 4. There is low risk that the contractor does not have the necessary organizational experience.

Satisfactory – 1.0 The offeror submitted information for three past or current contracts valued at over $5,000,000.

All of the experience was completed or commenced within the past five years. The experience is similar in operational complexity but does not display a sufficient level of technical complexity to be certain that the scope of work can be accomplished as required in PWS Section 1.3, Section 2, and Section 4. There is a moderate risk that the contractor does not have the necessary organizational experience.

Unsatisfactory – 0.0 The offeror…