Alaskan Satellite Space Segment Section M.pdf

Alaskan Satellite Space Segment SIR # 693KA8-25-R-00006

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 1

Table of Contents

M. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 AMS CLAUSES

M.1.1 AMS 3.1-1 CLAUSE AND PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (JULY 2019)

M.2 COMMUNICATION WITH OFFERORS

M.3 EVALUATION APPROACH

M.3.1 Award Selection M.3.1.2 Compliance Review M.3.1.3 Determination of Offeror Responsibility M.3.2 Best Value Trade-Off Process M.3.3 Award Considerations

M.4 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

M.5 EVALUATION PROCESS AND DEFINITIONS

M.5.1 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL

Technical Proposal Evaluation

M.6 FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

M.7 FACTOR 3: PRICE

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 2

M. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 AMS CLAUSES

M.1.1 AMS 3.1-1 Clause 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. Offerors and contractors must obtain the full text via Internet at:

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

Table M.1.1. - Clauses Incorporated by Reference Clause # Clause Title Clause Date 3.2.4-31 Evaluation of Options April 1996

(End of Clause)

M.2 COMMUNICATION WITH OFFERORS

The FAA may communicate with Offerors orally or in writing during the evaluation and over the course of the source selection process. The FAA reserves the right to conduct communications with none, one, some, or all competing Offerors. Any information obtained during communications may be used, at the FAA’s sole discretion, to clarify, substantiate, or validate information provided in an Offeror’s proposal. Responses to communication requests may be treated the same as information submitted with the written proposals and information disclosed as a result of oral or written communication with an Offeror may be considered by the FAA in the evaluation of an Offeror’s proposal, at the FAA’s sole discretion. Communications with one or more Offerors do not necessitate communications with other Offerors. The FAA is not required, however, to request any clarifications or accept any Offeror revisions. Content of the communications may vary among Offerors. The FAA is not obligated to advise Offerors of weaknesses, risks, or deficiencies identified in their proposals during the proposal review and evaluation process. Offerors must not assume that they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss, or revise their proposal. Therefore, 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.

Offerors must note the following:

• Communications with one Offeror do not require communications with any other Offeror.

• The FAA communications may occur orally or in writing.

• The FAA reserves the right to conduct communications, discussions, and negotiations with one, some, all, or no Offerors.

• The FAA is not obligated to advise Offerors of weaknesses, risks, or deficiencies identified in their proposals.

• Content of the communications may vary among Offerors https://fast.faa.gov/contractclauses.cfm

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 3

• Any information provided in response to an FAA issued communication may be used in the evaluation of proposals.

M.3 EVALUATION APPROACH

M.3.1 Award Selection

FAA will utilize a best-value trade-off approach for selecting an Offeror IAW the FAA Acquisition Management System (AMS). Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is determined to represent the best value to the FAA. Best value is defined as the proposal that presents the most advantageous offer to the FAA, based on the evaluation criteria in Section M.

Under the best-value approach, the FAA assesses non-price/cost factors and price/cost based on the evaluation criteria in this section and their relative order of importance and selects the Offeror proposing the combination of non-price/cost factors and price/cost representing the best value to the FAA. The best value approach provides the opportunity for trade-offs between non-price/cost factors and price/cost and does not require an award to be made to either the Offeror submitting the highest-rated proposal or the Offeror submitting the lowest price/cost, although the ultimate award may be to either one of those Offerors. Reference Procurement Guidance T3.2.2.3(A)(5)(1).

The FAA intends to award one contract but reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to award more than one contract or no contract as a result of this SIR.

M.3.1.2 Compliance Review

Each volume of the Offeror’s proposal will first be reviewed to determine whether it follows the requirements of Section L and includes the required information. Omission of information or proposals that do not conform to Section L requirements may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from award consideration or may impact the resulting evaluation ratings. The FAA may take these actions, in its sole discretion, without engaging in prior communication with the Offeror. Any pages in the proposals exceeding the page limit requirements identified in Section L will not be evaluated beyond the page limitation.

Failure to comply with all requirements and instructions of the Screening Information Request (SIR) may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award.

Submittals will be evaluated for completeness and accuracy and must contain the Offeror’s best technical, price and other than price terms necessary to determine reasonableness. . Offerors may be found ineligible for award if their proposals fail to conform to all terms and conditions of the SIR. If it is determined to be in its best interest, the FAA reserves the right to:

• Reject any and all offers;

• Waive any requirements; and,

• Accept minor irregularities and discrepancies.

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 4

Lack of detail in a proposal may result in weaknesses, risks, and/or lower evaluation scores or may be cause for rejection of the proposal.

M.3.1.3 Determination of Offeror Responsibility

The CO will make a determination of Offeror responsibility in accordance with AMS Procurement Guidance T3.2.2.7 - Contractor Qualifications and the requirements below. Any Offeror that the CO determines is not “responsible” (as defined in AMS Procurement Guidance T3.2.2.7 and herein) will be ineligible for award. To be eligible for award a responsible contractor:

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

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

(3) Has a satisfactory performance history;

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

(5) Has appropriate accounting and operational controls that may include, but are not limited to:

(a) Production control;

(b) Property control systems;

(c) Quality assurance programs; and

(d) Appropriate safety programs; and

(6) Is qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws or regulations.

(7) Has the necessary organization, experience, technical skills and facilities, and technical equipment or the ability to obtain them;

(8) Has no unacceptable Organizational Conflicts of Interests (OCIs) or OCI Mitigation Plans.

Determination of acceptability or unacceptability of potential OCIs and any associated OCI Mitigation Plans are made by the CO in accordance with AMS Procurement Guidance T3.1.7 Organizational Conflict of Interest” and applicable OCI clauses; and

(9) Has an Official able to commit the company.

In addition to the above qualifications, the Offeror’s data submitted in response to Section L.5.4.

will be considered to determine a potential contractor’s responsibility.

In accordance with AMS Section T.3.2.2.7.A.1.c, the CO may use the following sources of information to support responsibility determinations:

(1) Records and experience data, including verifiable knowledge of personnel within the contracting office, audit offices, contract administration offices, and other contracting offices;

(2) The prospective contractor, including proposal information, questionnaire replies, financial data, information on production equipment, and personnel information; and/or

(3) Other sources such as publications, suppliers, subcontractors, customers of the prospective contractor, and financial institutions.

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 5

M.3.2 Best Value Trade-Off Process

The process of determining the Offeror submission that represents the best value will consist of the following steps:

1. The FAA will review all Offeror submissions to determine if they are compliant in accordance with Section M.3.1.2. Non-compliant Offerors may be excluded from the remainder of the source evaluation process, at the FAA’s sole discretion.

2. The FAA will evaluate the Technical Volume and Past Performance Volume for each Offeror based on the merits of the Offeror’s proposal against the evaluation factors in Section M.

3. The FAA will assign a volume rating to the Technical Volume and to the Past Performance Volume each in accordance with Section M.

4. The FAA will evaluate the Price volume of each Offeror.

5. The FAA will perform a best value trade-off analysis of the Technical and Price Volume results to arrive at the best value recommendation. The FAA will assess Past Performance on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. As an Offeror must receive a rating of “Acceptable” to be included in the best value determination, the Past Performance rating will not be factored into the best value trade-off.

6. The best value recommendation will be provided to the Source Selection Official (SSO).

7. The SSO will make the best value decision.

The SSO will make an informed, fair, and reasoned business decision with respect to which offer represents the best value to the FAA.

M.3.3 Award Considerations

Offerors must ensure that their proposals contain the best terms from a technical, past performance, and price standpoint.

A rating of “Unsatisfactory,” as defined in this document, for the Technical Factor (Factor 1) will result in the exclusion of the Offeror from further consideration.

A rating of “Unacceptable”, as defined in this document, for the Past Performance volume will result in the exclusion of the Offeror from further consideration.

Proposals with only general statements of understanding of the SIR requirements, or proposals with omissions, incomplete responses, unrealistic technical, schedule, or cost proposals, or inconsistencies, may be deemed reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence or a failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the SIR requirements. Information not in its appropriate section per the Section L instructions and not appropriately referenced may be deemed to have been omitted. The FAA therefore reserves the right to determine such proposals as ineligible for further evaluation and for contract award.

The FAA may, at any time and within its sole discretion, communicate with the Offerors orally or in writing during the course of the source selection process. The FAA reserves the right to

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 6

conduct communications with one, some, all, or none of the Offerors. Any information obtained during communications may be used to clarify, substantiate, and validate information provided in an Offeror’s proposal, at the FAA’s sole discretion. Communications with one or more Offerors does not require communication with all Offerors. Responses to communication requests may be treated the same as information submitted with the written proposals and may serve as the basis for strengths or weaknesses. Offerors are advised that the FAA reserves the right to make an award based on initial proposals received without communications. Accordingly, Offerors are strongly encouraged to ensure that their proposals are complete and fully responsive to the SIR upon initial submission.

The FAA reserves the right to reject any request for any exceptions, deviations, or assumptions provided in accordance with L.5.4 and which do not identify and provide benefit to the FAA.

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, and to do so without communication with the Offeror.

The FAA 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.

If at any time during the evaluation process the FAA concludes that an Offeror is not likely to receive award, the FAA may eliminate the Offeror from further consideration for award. The FAA is not required to engage in communication with the Offeror prior to eliminating the Offeror from further consideration for award. Any Offeror eliminated from further consideration will be notified in writing by the CO once the determination has been made.

M.4 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

The FAA will evaluate Factor 1: Technical, Factor 2: Past Performance, and Factor 3: Price. The Technical Factor is more important than the Price Factor.

While the Technical volume is of the greatest importance, to the extent that two or more Offerors are rated comparably in that volume, the importance of Price will become more significant and may be used as a discriminator. Table M.4-1 (below) provides the rating methodology and order of importance.

Table M.4-1 Relative Weight of Factors For Best Value Trade-Off

FACTOR RATING METHODOLOGY IMPORTANCE

FACTOR 1 (Technical) Volume I

Subfactor Roll-Up to Factor Adjectival Rating (as set forth in table M.5-1.1).

More important than Price.

Subfactor 1 – ASTI Technical Specifications

Adjectival Rating as set forth in table M.5-1.1

Subfactor 1 is more important than individual Subfactors 2 and

3.

Subfactor 2 – Space Segment Selection, SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 7

Provisioning, and Transition Approach

Subfactors 2 and 3 are of equal importance to each other.

Subfactor 3 – Satellite Space Segment Plan (CDRL SSSP-01) and

Management approach

FACTOR 2 (Past Performance) Volume II

Acceptable/Unacceptable Evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis1

FACTOR 3 (Price) Volume III

N/A Less important than the Technical Factor.

M.5 EVALUATION PROCESS AND DEFINITIONS

M.5.1 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL

Subfactor 1: ASTI Technical Specifications

The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror proposes a technical solution that meets the requirements in Attachment J-1, Alaskan Satellite Space Segment Technical Specifications, for the primary, alternate, backup primary and backup alternate satellites proposed.

Subfactor 2: Space Segment Selection, Provisioning, and Transition Approach

The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror’s selection of satellites and transponders and the Offeror’s proposed approach to space segment provisioning (including increases and decreases in transponder usage) minimize the impact to FAA operations during transition (where applicable, (1) to a new satellite and/or transponder at the beginning of contract performance; or

(2) to a replacement satellite near end of life) and throughout the life of the contract.

Subfactor 3: Satellite Space Segment Plan (CDRL SSSP-01) and Management Approach

The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror's sample Satellite Space Segment Plan (CDRL SSSP-01) effectively addresses the SOW requirements in Section C.5. The FAA will also evaluate the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed management and operational processes, procedures, data collection systems, tools, and resources will be used to ensure the requirements of the SOW are met throughout the contract.

1 The FAA will assess Past Performance on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. As an Offeror must receive a rating of “Acceptable” to be included in the best value determination, the Past Performance rating will not be factored into the best value trade-off.

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 8

Technical Proposal Evaluation

The FAA will assign strengths, weaknesses, and risks, as defined in Table M.5-1, to each Technical Subfactor based on the evaluation criteria set forth herein. The FAA will assign adjectival ratings, as defined in Table M.5-1.1, to each Subfactor based on the combined impact of the strengths, weaknesses, and risks assigned to the Subfactor. The FAA will also assign the overall Technical Factor adjectival rating, as defined in Table M.5-1.1. The Subfactor adjectival ratings are the basis for the adjectival Factor rating. The FAA will consider the combined impact of the strengths, weaknesses, and risks across all Subfactors, along with the relative importance of the Subfactors, to determine the Factor-level adjectival rating.

For avoidance of doubt, ratings will be determined based on the impact of strengths, weaknesses, or risks, not the quantity of strengths, weaknesses, and risks.

Table M.5-1: Definition of Strength, Weakness, Risk, and Impact

Assessment Definition

Strength

Aspects of the Offeror’s Factor 1 Technical Proposal will be assessed a Strength based on:

(1) If an Offeror’s approach or process(es)would positively impact performance of the resulting contract; or

(2) If an Offeror’s approach or process(es) exceeds SIR requirements in a manner that would positively impact performance of the resulting contract; or

(3) If an Offeror’s approach or process(es) would benefit the Government.

Weakness

Aspects of the Offeror’s Factor 1 Technical Proposal will be assessed a Weakness based on:

(1) If an Offeror’s approach or process(es) would negatively impact performance of the resulting contract; or

(2) If an Offeror’s approach or process(es) does not meet SIR requirements; or

(3) If an Offeror’s approach or process(es) would have adverse consequences for the Government.

Risk

An aspect of the Offeror’s Factor 1 Technical Proposal that, when assessed as to its probability of occurrence and its effect, presents an uncertainty as to (1) the Offeror’s ability to satisfactorily perform the resulting contract; and/or (2) the Offeror’s ability and/or the proposed solution’s/approach’s ability to meet SIR requirements.

Impact The effect a strength, weakness, or risk on an Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the resulting contract.

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 9

Table M.5-1.1: Definition of Adjectival Ratings for Technical

Rating Description

Excellent

The Offeror’s response is comprehensive and demonstrates the capability to perform the full range of requirements and work effort.

The Offeror’s response significantly exceeds the SIR requirements and demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the SIR requirements.. There are one or more strengths identified, and the combined impact of the identified strength(s) far outweighs the combined impact of any identified weaknesses and/or risks.

Good

The Offeror’s response is fully acceptable and appropriately responds to the full range of requirements and work effort. The Offeror’s response exceeds the SIR requirements and demonstrates a thorough understanding of the SIR requirements. There are one or more strengths identified, and the combined impact of the identified strength(s) outweighs the combined impact of any identified weaknesses and/or risks.

Satisfactory

The Offeror’s response is acceptable and adequately addresses the full range of requirements and work effort. The Offeror’s response meets the SIR requirements and demonstrates an adequate understanding of the SIR requirements. There are no strengths, weaknesses or risks identified, or the combined impact of the strength(s) is approximately equivalent to the combined impact of the weakness(es) and risk(s) identified.

Marginal

The Offeror’s response does not address adequately the full range of requirements and work efforts. There are one or more weaknesses and/or risks identified, and the combined impact of the identified weakness(es) and/or risk(s) outweighs the impact of any strengths identified.

Unsatisfactory

The Offeror’s response is inadequate and does not comply with nor demonstrate a complete understanding of the requirements. The proposal does not demonstrate the capability to support the Government’s requirements. There are one or more weaknesses and/or risks identified, and the combined impact of the identified weakness(es) and/or risk(s) far outweighs the impact of any strengths identified.

Table M.5-1.2: Risk Levels

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

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 10

Medium Risk Could potentially cause some decreases in performance or increases in cost and/ or schedule. However, increased Contractor emphasis and mitigation, and increased Government monitoring may be able to overcome difficulties

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

M.6 FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

The inputs to the Past Performance evaluation are: (1) the brief description of the work performed under the contract (provided by the Offeror in accordance with Section L.5.2); (2) Customer responses to the Contract Performance Customer Surveys; and (3) any Supplemental Past Performance Information collected by the Government, as described in Section M.6.1.

M.6.1: SUPPLEMENTAL PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

The FAA reserves the right to collect Supplemental Past Performance Information in addition to the customer responses to the Contract Performance Customer Surveys to resolve conflicting information, obtain additional detail relevant to information provided in the surveys, or provide further insight into the Offeror’s history of performance. To obtain additional information, the FAA may:

• Contact customer points of contact provided in Volume II directly to obtain additional past performance information;

• Use information from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System

(CPARS);

• Confer with FAA personnel who have first-hand knowledge of an Offeror’s performance on other FAA contracts; and

• Refer to other sources as determined appropriate by the FAA.

Collectively, any additional information obtained from these sources is referred to as “Supplemental Past Performance Information.” The FAA may collect Supplemental Past Performance Information about none, one, some, or all Offerors. Obtaining Supplemental Past Performance Information about one Offeror does not obligate the FAA to collect it about other Offerors.

The FAA will document all information relied upon in evaluating an Offeror’s history of Past Performance in the Past Performance Evaluation Report, including Supplemental Past Performance Information (as applicable). If Supplemental Past Performance Information is collected for a Past Performance Effort that is not one of the Past Performance Efforts submitted by the Offeror in accordance with Section L.5.2, the FAA will document its findings as responses to the questions on the Contract Performance Customer Survey. Any Contract Performance Customer Surveys completed by the Government will be identified as such in the

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 11

Past Performance Evaluation Report and will be considered when determining the Past Performance rating.

M.6.2 RECENT & RELEVANT

The FAA will only evaluate Past Performance Efforts that meet the following definitions of recent and relevant. The FAA will exclude an Offeror from further consideration for award if it fails to submit at least one Past Performance Effort for which the Offeror was the prime contractor.

M.6.2.1 Recent A Past Performance Effort is Recent if it is on-going or was completed not more than five (5) years prior to the proposal submission due date.

Past Performance Efforts that the FAA determines are not recent will not be evaluated.

M.6.2.2 Relevant

A Past Performance Effort is Relevant if (1) it has a value of at least $2M per year, (2) the Offeror (or its teammate if Offeror was not prime on the Effort) provided transponder space and services to the end user, and (3) the Offeror (or its teammate if Offeror was not prime on the Effort) provided technical support and live assistance 24-7.

Past Performance Efforts that the FAA determines are not relevant will not be evaluated.

The FAA will only review the Contract Performance Customer Survey responses for Past Performance Efforts that the FAA determines are both recent and relevant.

M.6.3 CUSTOMER RESPONSES TO CONTRACT PERFORMANCE CUSTOMER

SURVEYS

In accordance with Section L.5.2, the FAA should receive three (3) responses to Contract Performance Customer Surveys per Offeror (one per Past Performance Effort identified). The Government reserves the right to make an award to an Offeror whose past performance submission does not include the requested number of Contract Performance Customer Surveys.

Conversely, the Government reserves the right at any point during the evaluation to eliminate any Offeror from further consideration if its past performance submission does not include the requested number of Contract Performance Customer Surveys.

M.6.4 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND RATING DEFINITIONS

The Government will assign ratings to each Offeror’s Past Performance submission (inclusive of Supplemental Past Performance Information, as applicable) based on the definitions and Rating Criteria in Table M.6-1. If a Customer indicates that a Contract Performance Customer Survey element is “Not Applicable”, the Government will not consider that element from the Customer’s Contract Performance Customer Survey response in its assessment.

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 12

Table M.6-1. Past Performance Rating Definitions

Rating Definition* Acceptable The Offeror demonstrates adequate past performance on work of similar size and complexity to this procurement within the past five years.

Offeror demonstrates a record of quality service, cost control, timeliness of performance, business relationship, personnel management, subcontractor management, and customer satisfaction. Based on the Offeror’s history of past performance on similar contracts, the Offeror is likely to successfully implement its proposed approach and provide timely services within budget in a manner that satisfies customer needs.

Unacceptable Based on the Offeror’s history of past performance on similar contracts there is a high risk that it cannot successfully implement its proposed approach.

*Based on all Contract Performance Customer Surveys considered, including Contract Performance Customer Survey forms completed by the Government based on the collection of Supplemental Past Performance information as described in Section M.6.1.

Disclosure of Negative Information. If the Government receives negative information that would have a significant effect on the likelihood of award to an Offeror, the CO will disclose the information and provide the Offeror a reasonable opportunity to respond. The Government will consider the Offeror’s response, facts obtained from the questionnaire, interview, or other sources when evaluating Disputed or Negative Information.

Offerors must be receive an “Acceptable” Past Performance rating in order to be eligible for award.

An Offeror that receives a rating of “Unacceptable” for Past Performance will be eliminated from consideration for award.

M.7 FACTOR 3: PRICE

The FAA will evaluate each Offeror’s price proposal in accordance with AMS Policy 3.2.3 and AMS Procurement Guidance T3.2.3 and as set forth in Section M.7. (below). The FAA will not record or assign ratings to the Offeror’s Price Proposals.

The FAA will evaluate the Price proposals for the following:

a) Total Evaluated Price.

b) Reasonableness Assessment.

c) Completeness/Consistency/Traceability.

d) Realism.

e) Balance.

Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The Government will evaluate Base and Option periods together to establish the TEP by multiplying the maximum quantity by the unit price proposed for each

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 13

CLIN, for all years of the contract base and options and summing them together for the TEP.

This does not bind the Government to exercise the Options or order all CLINs. The FAA will use the TEP in support of the best value trade-off analysis.

Reasonableness Assessment: The FAA will evaluate each price proposal for reasonableness in accordance with AMS Policy 3.2.3 and AMS Procurement Guidance 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. FAA anticipates adequate price competition for this requirement. If there is adequate price competition, FAA will analyze price reasonableness by comparing the Offeror’s proposed price to the prices proposed by other offerors and to the IGCE. If there is not adequate price competition, FAA may analyze price reasonableness using any technique permissible under AMS.

The FAA will evaluate each Offeror’s TEP for reasonableness. An Offeror whose TEP is not reasonable is ineligible for award. The FAA will also evaluate the reasonableness of unit prices.

If FAA’s analysis reveals questions about the reasonableness of an Offeror’s unit prices, the FAA may take that into consideration in its best value determination.

Completeness/Consistency/Traceability: The FAA will review each price proposal to determine whether or not it includes all required pricing information, and prices are traceable to and consistent with the BOE. Completeness will be determined based on the information requested in Section L. The FAA, at its sole discretion, might require additional information or reject proposals lacking completeness, consistency, or traceability.

Realism: In accordance with AMS Policy 3.2.3 and AMS Procurement Guidance T3.2.3(A)(1)(d), the FAA reserves the right to perform price realism on any or all of the proposed CLIN prices. If the FAA performs realism analysis (which, for avoidance of doubt it is not required to do under the terms of this SIR) and determines that a proposal contains prices that are determined to be unrealistic, the FAA may eliminate the proposal from further consideration for award.

Balance: The FAA will evaluate proposals to determine whether the Offeror’s proposal contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists where, despite a reasonable total evaluated price, the price of one or more CLINs is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques, or the offer is so grossly unbalanced that its acceptance would be equivalent to allowing an advanced payment. 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.

END OF SECTION M

M.7 FACTOR 3: PRICE