Section M_Rev-A - Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award Clause List

3.2.4-31 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS (OCT 2024)

3.11-49 DESTINATION UNKNOWN (APR 1999)

For the purpose of evaluating offers and for no other purpose, the final destination(s) for the supplies will be considered to be as follows: Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6501 Mike Monroney Blvd, Oklahoma City, OK 73169

(End of provision)

AC0250 EVALUATION OF OFFERS FOR SINGLE AWARD (JUN 2015)

Award will not be split by item. Failure to propose on all items listed in Section B may result in your offer not being further considered for award.

PART IV - SECTION M

Evaluation Factors for Award

M.1 General Information

This section of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Static Transfer Switch (STS) Screening Information Request (SIR) describes the factors that will be used to evaluate offers submitted in response to this solicitation.

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. The Government evaluation of proposals will cover all areas identified in Section M.

M.2 Basis for Award

This acquisition is being conducted in accordance with the FAA’s Acquisition Management System (AMS). Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is judged to represent the best value to the FAA. The best value determination will be based on the evaluation of each Offeror’s proposal in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section M. Best value describes the solution that is the most advantageous to the FAA based on the evaluation of technical quality, past performance, total evaluated price, and the other criteria set forth in Section M. It does not require that an award be made to either the Offeror submitting the highest rated technical solution or to the Offeror submitting the lowest cost/price, i.e., the cost/price proposal with the lowest total evaluated price may not be the judged to represent the best value to the FAA.

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 Number of Potential Awards

The FAA intends to select one Offeror for contract award. Should it decide to do so, the Government reserves the right to make multiple awards or to not make any award. The Government also reserves the right to deviate from this plan.

The FAA will perform its source selection based on the evaluation criteria in this Section M.

M.4 Evaluation Process

M.4.1 Overview

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

In evaluating the proposals, the Government reserves the right to conduct written or oral communications with any individual Offeror or all competing Offerors. Communications with one or more Offerors do not necessitate communications with other Offerors. The Government may communicate with Offerors orally or in writing during the evaluation.

The Government intends to evaluate each proposal and award a contract to the responsible Offeror whose offer represents the best value to the Government as defined in Section M. Offerors are cautioned that their initial proposals should contain the Offeror’s best terms.

Offerors must not assume that they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss, or revise their proposal. 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. It is critical that each proposal be fully responsive to the solicitation and its provisions. Offerors are instructed to submit proposals with their most favorable cost and non-cost terms.

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.

M.4.2 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 an award, the Government may eliminate the Offeror from further consideration for award.

The Government also reserves the right to (i) reject 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.4.3 Phased Evaluation Approach

The following section describes the phased evaluation process. This SIR does not authorize alternate proposals and the FAA will not evaluate any alternate proposal received.

M.4.3.1 Phase I – Compliance Review

Each volume of the Offeror’s proposal will first be reviewed by the Contracting Officer (CO) to determine whether it complies with the requirements of Section L, includes all the required information, and is timely. 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 FAA may not evaluate further any Offerors whose proposals do not fully meet SIR requirements. All Offerors will be notified of the FAA’s decision.

M.4.3.2 Phase II – DOWN SELECT Determination

Following the compliance review, the FAA will perform an evaluation of Volume III Past Experience, Past Performance, and Key Personnel Factor 1: Past Experience, Past Performance and Key Personnel; Sub-Factor

1.1 Past Experience Matrix, Sub-Factor 1.2 Past Experience Narratives, Sub-Factor 1.3 Past Performance and Sub- Factor 1.4 Key Personnel based on the evaluation process and criteria defined in Section M. Offerors determined to have no realistic chance for contract award based on Factor 1’s finding will be down selected and notified. A determination of “no realistic chance” is defined as an overall rating of Low Confidence or No Confidence for Factor 1.

The FAA may not evaluate further any Offerors whose proposals do not demonstrate a realistic chance for contract award. All Offerors will be notified of the FAA’s decision.

M.4.3.3 Phase III – Final Assessment

The FAA will evaluate the remaining proposal volumes, i.e., Volume II Factors 1 and 2, and Volume IV, from each remaining Offeror, based on the evaluation process and criteria defined in Section M.

M.5 Communications Regarding Contract Award

No contractual obligation or liability on the part of the Government will exist until the contract is awarded. 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 communicated 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 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.

M.6 Responsibility Determination

To be eligible for an award, the prospective Contractor must be determined by the CO to be responsible in accordance with AMS Policy 3.2.2.2 and 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 in accordance with Section L.6.1.5.

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

(a) Has or can obtain adequate financial resources to perform a contract;

(b) Has the ability to meet any required or proposed delivery schedules;

(c) Has a satisfactory performance history;

(d) Has a satisfactory record of integrity and proper business ethics;

(e) Has 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

(f) Is 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.7 Evaluation Factors

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

1) Offer and Other Documents (Volume I) (NOT RATED)

a) Section 1 – SF33

b) Section 2 – Section I

c) Section 3 – Section K

d) Section 4 – Responsible Prospective Contractors

2) Technical (Volume II)

a) Factor 1 – Technical Design and Support Services

i) Sub Factor 1.1 – - Operational Requirements

ii) Sub Factor 1.2 – - Start-up, and Operational Support Services

iii) Sub Factor 1.3 – Maintenance

b) Factor 2 – Training

3) Past Performance, Key Personnel, Relevant Experience (Volume III)

a) Factor 1 – Past Performance, Key Personnel, Relevant Experience (Volume III)

i) Sub Factor 1.1 – Past Performance Matrix

ii) Sub Factor 1.2 – Past Performance Narrative

iii) Sub Factor 1.3 – Past Performance

iv) Sub Factor 1.4 – Key Personnel

4) Cost/Price (Volume IV) (NOT RATED)

a) Part 1 – Section B, Pricing for CLINS X001 through X020 (base period and all options)

b) Part 2 – Basis of Estimates

c) Part 3 – Pricing Exhibits

M.7.1 EVALUATION FACTORS ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

Volume II (Technical) and Volume III (Past Performance, Key Personnel, Relevant Experience) are of equal importance. Volumes II and III are more important than Volume IV (Price).

For the Government’s Best Value trade-off, the combination of the technical factors in Volume II (Technical) and factors in Volume III (Past Performance, Key Personnel, Relevant Experience) evaluation results are more important than the Volume IV (Cost/Price) evaluation results. As the difference between Offerors in the Technical, Past Performance, Key Personnel, and Relevant Experience evaluation results decreases, the Cost/Price evaluation results will become more important. To the extent that (2) two or more Offerors are rated comparably in those sections, the Cost/Price Factor becomes more significant.

Within Volume II, Factor 1 (Technical Design and Support Services) is more important than Factor 2 (Training).

M.7.1.1 SUB-FACTOR ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

Within Volume II Factor 1, Sub-Factor 1.1 (Operational Requirements) is more important than Sub Factor 1.2 (Start-up, and Operational Support Services) and Sub Factor 1.3 (Maintenance). Sub-Factors 1.2 and 1.3 are of equal importance.

Within Volume III Factor 1, Sub-Factor 1.1 (Past Experience Matrix), Sub-Factors 1.2 (Past Experience Narratives), Sub-Factor 1.3 (Past Performance Customer Surveys and/or CPARS Reports) and Sub-Factor 1.4 (Key Personnel) are of equal importance.

M.8 Proposal Evaluation

M.8.1 Volume II – Technical Factor 1 (Technical Design and Support Services), and Factor 2 (Training Proposal)

The FAA will evaluate the degree to which each proposal is viable, substantiated, and realistic. The FAA will:

a) Review, analyze, and consider all information received in each proposal, which will include the written proposal content and any information received from written communication items, if issued.

b) Identify any deficiencies, strengths, weaknesses, and risks, as identified in Table M-1 for each element within each Sub-Factor in each proposal.

c) Rate each Factor, according to the Adjectival Ratings defined in Table M-3 by assessing deficiencies, strengths, weaknesses, and risks noted in the elements within the Sub-Factors.

When determining an overall rating for the Factors, the FAA will review all deficiencies, strengths, weaknesses, and risks to determine the ratings. Ratings will not be determined solely based on the quantity of deficiencies, strengths, weaknesses, or risks.

M.9 Definitions Used in Evaluation of Volume II (Technical) FACTORS 1 AND 2

Table M-1: DEFINITIONS OF DEFICIENCY, STRENGTH, WEAKNESS, AND RISK

Term Definition

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

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

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

Risk Risk is anything that may have an adverse effect on cost, quality, schedule or overall performance of the contractor.

M.9.1 Adjectival Ratings Used for Volume II (Technical) FACTORS 1 AND 2.

Table M-2 VOLUME II ADJECTIVAL RATING DEFINITIONS

Rating Definition

Excellent The impact of the strengths and far outweighs the impact of any weaknesses and risks.

Good The impact of the strengths and outweighs the impact of any weaknesses and risks.

Satisfactory The impact of any strengths and is approximately equal to the impact of any weaknesses and risks.

Marginal The impact of the weaknesses and risks outweighs the impact of any strengths.

Unsatisfactory The combined impact of the weaknesses and risks far outweighs the impact of any strengths.

M.9.2 Evaluation Criteria for Volume II (Technical) FACTOR 1 Technical Design and Support Services

M.9.2.1 SUB-Factor 1.1: OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS

The FAA will evaluate:

a) The degree to which the Offeror provides information that demonstrates the proposed STS equipment will support the specification requirements below as related to CLINS X001 thru X007.

b) The degree to which the Offeror submits a complete Attachment J.11, STS Operational Characteristics.

c) The degree to which the Offeror is “C” Complies with no exceptions, “D” Complies with deviations, “S” Surpasses or “E” Exception, does not comply to the Specification as it relates to Attachment J.2, STS Specification, and Attachment J.1 SOW.

M.9.2.1.1 SUB-Factor 1.2: START-UP AND OPERATIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES

The FAA will evaluate:

a) The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates the vendor approach to Start Up Services and provides the organization, content, and level of detail of Start Up documentation (See section C.3.4)

b) The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates the vendor approach to Operational Support Services and provides the organization, content, and level of detail of associated documentation (See section C.3.4.4)

M.9.2.1.2 SUB-Factor 1.3: MAINTENANCE

The FAA will evaluate:

a) The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates their current commercial maintenance materials and addresses how these materials are developed, managed, and implemented into the field for use by non-factory personnel.

b) The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates their approach to the control of technical changes in maintenance documentation and policy when design/changes are made to the unit that have an impact on field and shop maintenance (see SOW Section 3.4.3).

c) The degree to which the Offeror provides the organization, content, and level of detail of the maintenance manual that demonstrates that STS problems and issues concerning interfaces with external systems and devices can be diagnosed and corrected by trained maintenance personnel using these maintenance manuals as a reference. Such that the level of detail must enable the technician to identify the failure as an equipment failure and will enable the technician to isolate the failure to one of the Lowest Replaceable units (LRU).

d) The degree to which the Offeror describes their warranty of both parts and labor for EGS, associated equipment (including spare parts) and repair services (see SOW C.3.4.3.1) and the favorability of the warranty terms.

M.9.3 Evaluation Criteria for Volume II (Technical) FACTOR 2 Training Proposal

The FAA will evaluate:

a) The degree to which the Offeror provides a training proposal that demonstrates the requirements of C.3.6.

b) The degree to which the Offeror provides a training proposal that demonstrates how their current factory training program is developed, managed, and implemented into an effective training program.

c) The degree to which the Offeror provides a training proposal that demonstrates their approach to the training required for technical personnel in supporting newly fielded STS.

d) The degree to which the Offeror provides a training proposal that demonstrates the Offeror’s factory training facilities and instructors’ qualifications (see SOW Section C.3.6).

e) The degree to which the Offeror provides copies of their commercial training materials and data, covering each configuration. The degree to which the Offeror’s training demonstrates:

i. Formal classroom activities, as well as technical documentation for use by the FAA for incorporation into existing FAA training programs.

ii. In-depth theory of operation, troubleshooting, and adjustment of all subsystems of the items listed in Section B CLINS X011 through X013.

f) The degree to which the Offeror provides a factory training facility and course content providing training that demonstrates the FAA maintenance concept. To meet the FAA’s maintenance concept, training must demonstrate:

i. Inspection of equipment,

ii. Troubleshoot/diagnosis to fault,

iii. Removal of failed parts/LRU(s),

iv. Replacement of failed parts/LRU(s), and

v. Validation and certification (if applicable) that the system is operational and available for operation.

M.9.4 Volume III – DEFINITIONS Used in Evaluation of FACTOR 1 (Past Experience, Past Performance and Key Personnel)

For Volume III Factor 1 evaluation purposes, size, scope, and complexity are defined in Table M-4 below.

Table M-3: SIZE, SCOPE, AND COMPLEXITY DEFINITIONS Term Definition Size Magnitude of effort in dollars. See L.8.1 Scope Range of operations or services covered. See L.8.1 Complexity Degree of difficulty needed to meet scope requirements. See L.8.1

Table M-5 contains the definitions of relevancy and recency used by the FAA when evaluating Volume III, Factor 1.

The FAA is not bound by the Offeror’s view of relevancy or recency. Experience and Performance evaluations will be conducted on information determined to be relevant and recent. Past performance examples that do not meet recency and relevancy requirements may be considered but will not receive full credit.

In the absence of relevant past performance as defined in Table M-3, the Offeror’s past performance may be assessed based upon their three most recent past performance credentials closest to the STS requirements as defined in this SIR. These examples may be submitted by the Offeror or identified by the FAA. If fewer than three Past Performance Customer Surveys are received, the FAA reserves the right to waive the submission requirement or assign a lower rating for the volume.

Table M-4: RELEVANT AND RECENT DEFINITIONS Term Definition Relevant Having similar scope, size (magnitude of effort in dollars) and complexity to the requirements of this. SIR. See L.7.1

Recent Occurring within the last five years of the date of proposal submission.

M.9.5 Adjectival Ratings Used for Volume III, Factor 1 (Past Experience, Past Performance and Key Personnel)

The following adjectival ratings listed in Table M-6 will be used when evaluating Volume III, Factor 1 (Past

Experience, Past Performance and Key Personnel). The resulting Confidence Rating represents an overall evaluation of the four Sub-Factors, and the likelihood of the Offeror’s successful performance under the STS contract.

Table M-5: VOLUME III, FACTOR 1 ADJECTIVAL RATING DEFINITIONS

Rating Definition High Confidence The past performance response gives the FAA a high degree of confidence that the requirements will be met in a timely and cost-effective manner. The impact of identified strengths and greatly outweighs the impact of any weaknesses and/or risks.

Confidence The past performance response gives the FAA a degree of confidence that requirements can be met in a timely and cost-effective manner. The impact of identified strengths and outweighs the impact of any identified weaknesses and/or risks.

Low Confidence The past performance response gives the FAA low confidence that the requirements may be met in a timely and cost-effective manner. The impact of any strengths and is equivalent to or somewhat less than the impact of any weaknesses and/or risks

No Confidence The past performance does not fully address the requirements. The response fails to adequately identify the competency or capability to meet the requirements in a timely manner and cost-effective manner. The impact of weaknesses and/or risks greatly outweighs the impact of any strengths.

M.9.6 Evaluation Criteria for Volume III Factor 1 (Past Experience, Past Performance and Key Personnel)

M.9.6.1 Sub-Factor 1.1: Past Experience Matrix

The FAA will evaluate:

a) The degree to which the proposed team members – prime contractor and/or subcontractors – have recent experience in all the identified areas of the experience matrix of L.8.1.1

b) The degree to which the proposed team members – prime contractor and/or subcontractors – have demonstrated maximum relevant experience in all the identified areas of the experience matrix of L.8.1.1

M.9.6.1.2 Sub-Factor 1.2: Past Experience Narratives

The FAA will evaluate:

a) The degree to which the past experience is comparable to the STS Contract in terms of size (magnitude of effort in dollars), scope, and complexity.

b) The degree to which the past performance demonstrates the Offeror’s capability, experience, and performance relative to the SOW requirements.

M.9.6.1.3 Sub-Factor 1.3: Past Performance Questionnaires and/or CPARS Performance Reports

The FAA will evaluate:

a) The degree to which the submitted Past Performance Questionnaires and/or CPARS Performance Reports are consistent with information provided by the Offeror

b) The degree to which the submitted Past Performance Customer Surveys and/or CPARS Performance Reports demonstrates customer (i.e., end user) satisfaction with the Offeror’s service.

M.9.6.1.4 Sub-Factor 1.4: Key Personnel

The FAA will evaluate:

a) The degree to which the resume meets requirements of Attachment J.04, Labor Categories.

b) The degree to which the resume for the Key Personnel demonstrates minimum of three (3) years of program management experience with contracts of same or similar size, scope, and complexity.

c) The degree to which the resume for the Key Personnel demonstrates capability, experience, and performance relative to Section C.3.1.

M.9.2 Volume VI – Cost/Price Evaluation The FAA will evaluate proposed pricing of all CLINs for reasonableness, and review proposed pricing for balance, completeness, consistency, and traceability. In addition, cost type CLINs will be evaluated for realism in accordance with AMS Guidance T.3.2.3, Cost/Price Methodology. The FAA reserves the right to evaluate the other CLINs for price realism.

a) 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.

b) Balance – The FAA will review each price proposal to determine whether the Offeror’s proposal contains unbalanced pricing of separately priced line items. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable Total Evaluated Price (TEP), the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. Offerors are cautioned that a proposal may be rejected if unbalanced pricing exists, and the FAA determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk.

c) 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.

d) Realism – The realism analysis will be considered in terms of the Offeror’s understanding of requirements.

The realism analysis determines whether an Offeror’s proposed prices are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements and are consistent with the various elements of the Offeror’s technical proposal. This may require the FAA to request additional information from the Offerors.

The FAA will verify that prices have been submitted for all requested Contract Line-Item Numbers (CLINs). An FAA Evaluation Copy of the Cost Model and the validation version of the Cost Model will be used by the FAA to verify each Offeror’s computation of costs for the prices entered within their submitted Cost Model. The FAA will verify submission by the Offeror by copying the prices submitted within the Offeror’s Cost Model to the validation version to ensure consistency of evaluation.

M.9.3 Cost Model and TEP The FAA will evaluate the Offeror’s cost/price proposals using the populated Section B, Cost Model and additional supporting documentation submitted by the Offeror. In evaluating offers for source selection, the FAA will use a Total Evaluated Price (TEP), which includes the complete scope of the program across the entire contract period of performance (base and all options) however; it excludes the sum of selected CLINs or Sub-CLINs or elements of Sub-CLINs with Offeror proposed values.

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

The TEP will be the sum of:

a) Proposed price for selected Firm Fixed Price CLINs;

b) Extended proposed prices for LH and CR CLINS; and

c) CLINs with FAA provided Not-to-Exceed (NTE) amounts.

The result of the cost realism evaluation will be a determination of the sum of all FFP CLINs and T&M CLINs. As part of this process, the FAA will conduct a Quantitative and Qualitative (Q&Q) analysis of the proposal.

The Government’s Price evaluation results in the Best Value trade-off analysis. There is no volume-level rating of the Price Volume.

M.9.6.1 Extended proposed prices for LH and CR CLINS Extended proposed prices for LH and CR CLINS will result from multiplying the government estimated hours by the Offeror’s proposed fully burdened rate for each labor category. Government estimated hours used to develop extended proposed prices for LH & CR CLINS do not represent a commitment by the FAA to purchase this amount of service (or mix of labor).

M.9.6.2 Cost/Price Assumptions, Deviations, and Contingencies The FAA reserves the right to reject any exceptions, deviations, or assumptions made. The FAA reserves the right to deem a statement that contradicts a SIR requirement, an exception, or deviation, whether or not the offeror identifies it as such.

End of Section M

The remainder of this page has been intentionally left blank.