ASH-IV SIR SEC M_POSTED.pdf

Screening Information Request (SIR) Number 693KA9-24-R-00004

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1

M.1 BASIS FOR AWARD

M.1.1 Award Selection

This acquisition is being conducted in accordance with the FAA’s Acquisition Management System (AMS) and will utilize a best-value approach for selecting an Offeror for award. Under the best-value approach, the Government assesses price, non-price, and risk factors based on the evaluation criteria in this section and their relative order of importance and selects the Offeror proposing the combinations of price, non-price and risk factors representing the best value to the Government. This approach provides the opportunity for a trade-off between price, non-price, and risk factors and does not require that awards be made to either the Offeror submitting the highest-rated technical proposal or the Offeror submitting the lowest prices.

Each offer will be evaluated separately, and in evaluating the proposals, the Government may conduct written or oral communications with any or all Offerors and may reduce the firms participating in the competition to only those Offerors most likely to receive award.

Offerors are cautioned not to minimize the importance of a detailed adequate response in any one of the factors.

M.1.2 Eligibility for Award

To be eligible for award, the Offeror must meet the all the requirements of the SIR. However, the FAA reserves the right to reject any and all offers and to waive any requirements, minor irregularities, and discrepancies, if it would be in the best interest of the FAA to do so. The Offeror must also be determined to be financially viable and otherwise responsible. To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must:

• have adequate resources (financial, technical, etc.) to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them;

• be able to comply with the required or proposed delivery or performance schedule, considering all existing business commitments;

• have a satisfactory performance record;

• have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics; and

• be otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations.

The Government reserves the right to conduct a Pre-Award Survey of any offeror or proposed subcontractor.

M.1.3 Award on Initial Offers

The FAA reserves the right to award a contract immediately following the conclusion of any evaluation without communications or negotiations with the successful Offeror or any other Offeror. Therefore, it is critical that each offer be fully responsive to this SIR and its provisions. All submittals in response to a SIR should contain the Offeror's best terms from a price, technical, and business and management standpoint.

M.2 EVALUATION PROCESS

To be eligible for award consideration, an offeror must receive a volume-level rating of Acceptable for Volume I, a volume-level rating of Satisfactory or higher for Volumes II and IV, a volume-level rating of Somewhat Relevant or higher for Volume III, and a volume-level confidence rating Low Risk or Moderate Risk for Volume VII. If a proposal does not receive a volume-level rating of Acceptable for Volume I, the offeror will no longer be considered for award, and the FAA will not evaluate the other volumes of the offeror’s proposal. If an offeror does not receive the minimum rating listed below for each of Volumes II, III, IV, or VII, the entire proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award.

See Table M.1

M-2

Table M-1. Minimum Volume Ratings to be Considered Qualified for Award

M.3 EVALUATION APPROACH

The FAA will evaluate each Offeror's capability to perform the effort required by this SIR based on the following required proposal content and rating scheme. See Table M.2

Table M-2. Ratings Assigned by Volume

Each proposal volume will be evaluated against the requirements of the SIR and the evaluation factors and their sub-factors, and each proposal volume, except for the Price Proposal, will be given an overall rating at the proposal volume level. Volume I will be given an Acceptable/Unacceptable rating.

Volume II Sample Tasks, Volume III Corporate Experience, and Volume IV Management Approach will each be given an overall adjectival rating or relevancy rating as reflected in Table M-2. The Price Proposal will not be assigned an adjectival, nor an Acceptable/Unacceptable rating. Price analysis will include an assessment of reasonableness and as described below; the FAA reserves the right to perform price realism. Past Performance will be given a risk rating.

M.3.1 Best Value

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with the FAA AMS and this document.

Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is judged to represent the best value to the Government. Best value will be based on an evaluation of all stated criteria and will be determined by evaluating each proposal in the areas defined in this section. Risks identified within any aspect an Offeror’s proposal will be analyzed as to their potential impacts.

The Source Selection Official (SSO) will consider the final evaluation and use his/her best judgment to arrive at a best value decision. Therefore, the successful offeror may not have submitted the lowest price/cost. While the government evaluation team and the SSO will strive for maximum objectivity, the evaluation process, by nature, is subjective and professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. The Government intends to select one contractor for this work. However, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all, depending on the quality of the proposals submitted and the availability of funds.

Volume Minimum Rating Volume I - Minimum Capability Qualification Acceptable Volume II - Sample Tasks Satisfactory Volume III - Corporate Experience Somewhat Relevant Volume IV - Management Approach Satisfactory Volume V - Offer and Other Documents N/A Volume VI - Price Proposal N/A Volume VII – Past Performance Moderate Risk

Volume Rating Volume I - Minimum Capability Qualification Acceptable/Unacceptable Volume II - Sample Tasks Adjectival Volume III - Corporate Experience Relevancy Rating Volume IV - Management Approach Adjectival Volume V - Offer and Other Documents N/A Volume VI - Price Proposal N/A Volume VII – Past Performance Risk Rating

M-3

M.3.2 Order of Importance

Volume I Minimum Capability Qualification is evaluated as described in Section M.4.1. The Volume I rating is a threshold requirement and will not be considered in the subsequent best-value tradeoff.

• Volume I: Minimum Capability Qualifications must be rated as Acceptable, in order to remain in consideration for award.

• Combined, the Volume II: Sample Tasks plus the Volume III: Corporate Experience plus the Volume IV: Management Approach plus Volume VII: Past Performance are more important than Volume VI: Price/Cost Proposal.

• Volume II: Sample Tasks is more important than Volume III: Corporate Experience and Volume IV: Management Approach.

• Volume III: Corporate Experience and Volume IV: Management Approach are of Equal Value.

• Volume III: Corporate Experience and Volume IV: Management Approach are more important than Volume VII: Past Performance.

• As the ratings for non-price factors become closer, Volume VI: Price/Cost Proposal may become more important in selecting the “best value” offer.

The FAA intends to award a contract without discussions with offerors. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and/or negotiations with any and/or all offerors, as determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary.

M.3.3 Evaluation Standards

Volume I: Minimum Qualification Standards will be given a volume-level Acceptable/Unacceptable rating. For Volume I only an Acceptable rating for all factors will result in a volume-level rating of “Acceptable.” Each factor under Volume I will be rated as “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. The Acceptable/Unacceptable ratings are defined in Table M-3.

Table M-3. Definitions of Acceptable and Unacceptable

Acceptable Meets the stated criterion

Unacceptable Does not meet the stated criterion

The following adjectival ratings listed in Table M-4 will be used when evaluating Volume II: Sample Tasks.

Table M-4. Adjectival Ratings for Volume II: Sample Tasks

Rating Description

Excellent

The Offeror’s response comprehensively addresses the contractual and performance requirements. The combined impact of the strengths far outweighs the combined impact of any weaknesses or will have little or no impact on performance.

Good

The Offeror’s response ranges from adequately to comprehensively addressing the contractual and performance requirements. The combined impact of the strengths outweighs the combined impact of any weaknesses.

Satisfactory

The Offeror’s response adequately addresses the contractual and performance requirements. The combined impact of any strengths is approximately equal to the combined impact of any weaknesses and/or will have little or no impact on performance.

M-4

Unsatisfactory

The Offeror’s response does not adequately address the contractual and or performance requirements and/or contains a deficiency. The combined impact of the weaknesses outweighs the combined impact of any strengths.

The following adjectival ratings listed in Table M-5 will be used when evaluating Volume III: Corporate Experience.

Table M-5. Adjectival Ratings for Volume III: Corporate Experience Evaluation

Rating Definition Very Relevant

Experience involved essentially the same size, scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Based on the experience, the Government has high confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Relevant Experience involved much of the same or similar size, scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Based on the experience, the Government has reasonable confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Somewhat Relevant

Experience involved some of the same or similar size, scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Based on the experience, the Government has low confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Not Relevant Experience involved little or none of the same or similar size, scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Based on the experience, the Government has no confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

The following adjectival ratings listed in Table M-6 will be used when evaluating the overall rating for Volume IV: Management Approach.

Table M-6. Adjectival Ratings for Volume IV: Management Approach

Excellent The Offeror’s response comprehensively addresses the contractual and performance requirements. The combined impact of the strengths far outweighs the combined impact of any weaknesses.

Good

The Offeror’s response ranges from adequately to comprehensively addressing the contractual and performance requirements. The combined impact of the strengths outweighs the combined impact of any weaknesses.

Satisfactory

The Offeror’s response adequately addresses the contractual and performance requirements. The combined impact of any strengths is approximately equal to the combined impact of any weaknesses and/or will have little or no impact on performance.

Unsatisfactory

The Offeror’s response does not adequately address the contractual and or performance requirements and/or contains a deficiency. The combined impact of the weaknesses outweighs the combined impact of any strengths.

Volume VII: Past Performance will be given a risk rating. The Risk ratings are defined in Table M-7.

M-5

Table M-7. Definitions of Risk for Volume VII: Past Performance

Rating Definition Low Risk Based on the Offeror’s past performance, little doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required tasks.

Moderate Risk Based on the Offeror’s past performance, there are some concerns as to whether the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required tasks.

High Risk Based on the Offeror’s past performance, substantial doubt exists as to whether the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required tasks.

Evaluators will identify and assess strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks in the Proposals relative to the evaluation criteria defined in Section M and assign an overall volume-level Rating. The definitions of strength, weakness, risk, and deficiency are listed in Table M-8.

Table M-8. Definitions of Strength, Weakness, Risk and Deficiency

Strength

An aspect of a proposal that would positively impact performance of the resulting contract, exceed the minimum requirements, or otherwise benefit the Government.

Weakness An aspect of a proposal that would negatively impact performance of the resulting contract, fail to meet the minimum requirements, or otherwise harm the Government.

Risk An aspect of a proposal that presents an uncertainty as to the ability of the Offeror successfully to perform the required effort or the proposed approach.

Deficiency An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that substantially fails to provide information required by the SIR or that fails to demonstrate the qualifications of an Offeror to meet the minimum requirements of the SIR.

M.4 EVALUATION FACTORS

The FAA will evaluate each Volume using the following factors.

M.4.1 Volume I Minimum Capability Qualification

Volume I will be evaluated based on the criterion for each factor described below. All offerors must receive a rating of “Acceptable” for all Volume I factor to be considered for award.

FACTOR 1 – Corporate Capability

The FAA will evaluate whether the offeror demonstrated that it has been in operation for the most recent five company fiscal years prior to the date of proposal submission.

FACTOR 2 – Financial Resources

The FAA will evaluate whether the Offeror demonstrated proof of a line of credit of at least $4 million by submitting a certified letter of credit from a financial institution. The Prime vendor must maintain the line of credit during the performance period of the contract.

FACTOR 3 – Software Capability Maturity Model Rating

The FAA will evaluate whether the offeror demonstrated that itself or the entity (subcontractor or teaming partner) that will be responsible for software development efforts in accordance with the SOW has a current certified Software Capability Maturity Model (CMM) Rating of at least 3.

M-6

FACTOR 4 – Facility Security Clearance Requirements

The FAA will evaluate whether the offeror demonstrated that it has a Facility Security Clearance Level of Secret as of the release date of this SIR.

FACTOR 5 – Key Personnel

The FAA will evaluate whether the offeror demonstrated that each proposed key personnel meet the minimum qualifications for his or her proposed labor category. The vendor shall submit a commitment letter, signed by each proposed key person, that is valid for at least one year, if the proposed employee is not already an employee of the vendor. The key personnel labor categories for this contract are listed below:

• Program Manager (1),

• Software Architect (1), and

• Senior Database Administrator (1).

M.4.2 Volume II: Sample Tasks

Under Volume II, an overall volume-level Rating will be assigned based on the standards contained in M.3.3. The FAA will assess the degree to which the Offeror responds to each Sample Task with a complete, detailed, and executable solution. The FAA will evaluate each Sample Task response using the following two criteria:

• Problem Understanding – The degree to which the Offeror identified the problem(s) to be solved, key assumption(s), issue(s) and/or major challenge(s); and the degree to which the Offeror described relevant trade-offs and significant risks associated with the problem(s).

• Approach – The degree to which the Offeror describes its approach to the operational scenario with a complete, detailed, and executable solution, including a description of the approach, key activities, and implementation schedule; any proposed innovative solutions that demonstrate the Offeror’s experience with security operations; and a description of the concept of operations for implementing the proposed solution.

Sample Task 1 – FAA physical security risk management process Sample Task 2 – Trusted Workforce 2.0 Sample Task 3 – Migrate PIV applications to FAA GovCloud Sample Task 4 – FAA GovCloud availability, security, monitoring and management

Offerors must respond to all four Sample Tasks, but the Sample Tasks are not separately weighted or separately rated and are equally important. In accordance with M.3.3., Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a Sample Tasks Volume rating of Unacceptable will result in the entire proposal being eliminated from the competition.

M.4.3 Volume III: Corporate Experience

Under Volume III, an overall volume-level Relevancy Rating will be assigned based on the standards contained in M.3.3.

The Relevancy Rating reflects the Government’s assessment on the extent to which the Offeror (and proposed team members or principal subcontractors) has obtained recent, relevant experience on contracts or subcontracts performed with similar size, scope and complexity as the SIR requirements.

When proposals are received from contractor entities (e.g., teaming arrangements/joint ventures) specifically formed to propose on a particular acquisition, the experience evaluation will consider each individual team member.

The Government will evaluate the degree to which recent, relevant experience describes the Offeror’s, and

M-7 proposed principal subcontractors’ experience performed, any portion of which, within the last five (5) years, similar to work described in SIR Section C.5 Tasks 1-7, and the degree to which it demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to perform the required effort as delineated within the SIR, to include the similar size, scope and complexity of the effort required.

For this procurement, greater weight will be given to the experience of the Prime contractor Offeror than to that of any proposed subcontractor. Experience gained as a prime contractor will be weighted equally with experience gained as a subcontractor.

In accordance with M.3.3., Offerors are advised that a Corporate Experience Volume with a “Not Relevant” Rating will result in the entire proposal being eliminated from the competition.

M.4.4: Volume IV: Management Approach

Under Volume IV, an overall volume-level rating will be assigned based on the standards contained in M.3.3. The FAA will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Management Approach in the following areas:

a. Staff Organization and Management - The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates the ability to organize, manage, and direct staff to meet the requirements of the contract. The degree to which the Offeror describes the organizational structure and processes that will be employed to ensure successful staff and performance management, including the ability to support, manage and direct remote workers, due to anticipated large amount of work being performed remotely.

b. Ability to recruit and retain qualified staff – The degree to which the offeror has the potential to ensure identification, recruitment, and retention of qualified staff, to include remote workers, for this contract. The degree to which the vendor will ensure personnel availability as required to perform the requirements in the SOW.

c. Internal purchasing system/process - The degree to which the proposal demonstrates that appropriate policy and controls would be in place for the purchase under this contract of Other Direct Cost (ODC)/material and equipment. The degree to which the proposed purchasing system can accommodate the requirements of this contract and consistently deliver quality products through price competition.

d. Subcontract Management - The degree to which the subcontract-management approach has the potential to ensure effective, efficient, and high-quality subcontractor performance. The degree to which clear subcontractor work assignments, reporting, communication, and management oversight reflect a comprehensive and clear management plan for subcontractors performing on this contract. The degree to which the subcontractor management plan is compliant with the FAA Small Business utilization goals (Reference also Section H.8).

e. Program contract management – The degree to which the proposed problem identification and escalation process demonstrates an effective problem management and resolution process for this contract. The degree to which the proposed risk-management plan has the potential to identify, assess, and mitigate risks encountered during contract performance.

f. Transition Plan – The degree to which the transition approach has the potential to ensure an effective and efficient transition from the concluding contract to full performance under the new contract, including a comprehensive schedule and sequence of activities from contract award through full service delivery. The degree to which transition plan is realistic and achievable and considers dependencies on FAA actions including clearances, facility/system access, and resource availability. The degree to which the plan identifies transition risks and describes realistic transition risk mitigation strategies.

M-8

All of the above areas must be addressed in the offeror’s Management Approach Volume, but the areas will not be separately weighted or separately rated and are equally important. In accordance with M.3.3., Offerors are advised that a Management Approach Volume rating of Unacceptable will result in the entire proposal being eliminated from the competition.

M.5 VOLUME V: OFFER AND OTHER DOCUMENTS

The FAA will evaluate Volume V to determine all necessary forms are completed and certified. The FAA will also validate that all Section K Representations, Certifications and Other Certifications and Statements are completed.

M.6 VOLUME VI: PRICE PROPOSAL

The Price Volume will be evaluated but not rated or scored. In evaluating the Price Volume, the FAA will use a Total Evaluated Price (TEP), which includes the base and all option years. The TEP will be the sum of:

1.) The proposed fully burdened labor rates for each category multiplied by the hours included in the Price Model in Attachment L-2; and

2.) The Not-to-Exceed amounts included in the Cost Reimbursable CLINs.

The FAA will also evaluate for reasonableness the T&M rates that are included in the price model but do not have hours associated to them.

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

The FAA will evaluate Volume VI for reasonableness in accordance with AMS Policy Section 3.2.3.2 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.

The FAA will review Volume VI to determine whether it includes all required pricing information as described in Section L.16.

The FAA reserves the right to conduct cost analysis on base labor rates if deemed necessary to support the price reasonableness analysis. This may require the FAA to request additional information from the Offerors.

The FAA reserves the right to perform price realism. The objective of the price realism analysis is to ensure that the prices proposed are not so low that contract performance is put at risk. This may include assessing whether the prices in an Offeror’s proposal are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the elements of the Offeror’s technical proposal.

The FAA reserves the right to evaluate the price proposals for balance. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more fully burdened rates is significantly understated or overstated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques; or the offer is so grossly unbalanced that its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advanced payment. Offerors are cautioned that a proposal may be rejected if unbalanced pricing exists, and the FAA determined that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk.

M.6.1 Exceptions or Assumptions

The FAA reserves the right to reject any exceptions or assumptions made. The FAA reserves the right to deem a statement that contradicts a SIR requirement, an exception, whether or not the offeror identifies it as such.

M-9

M.7 VOLUME VII: PAST PERFORMANCE

For Volume VII, an overall volume-level rating will be assigned based on the standards contained in M.3.3.

The following definitions apply:

“Recent” means a past performance example any portion of which was performed within the last five

(5) years.

“Relevant” means a past performance example that is of a similar or directly related size, scope, and complexity to that described in the SOW Section C.4 Scope of Work or C.5 Requirements (Tasks 1-7).

The past performance evaluation factor is as follows:

The Government reserves the right to contact directly the customer points of contact provided in Part A. In addition, the Government reserves the right to obtain additional past-performance information for any prime Offeror and any proposed subcontractors from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Dun & Bradstreet reports, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), previous contracts, and other sources as determined appropriate by the Government. Information from any or all of these sources may be considered in the evaluation of an Offeror’s past performance.

For the Past Performance volume, a past performance risk rating will be assigned. The past performance risk rating will address the probability that the Offeror will successfully accomplish the contract requirement based on the Offeror’s recent, relevant past performance. When proposals are received from contractor entities (e.g., teaming arrangements/joint ventures) specifically formed to propose on a particular acquisition, the past performance evaluation will consider each individual team member.

Under Past Performance, the Government will evaluate how well an Offeror has performed previous relevant work. The evaluation will be based upon the degree to which the Offeror details their recent relevant past performance and the past performance of their proposed principal subcontractors or teaming arrangements, if applicable. The evaluation includes an assessment of the following elements as detailed under Past Performance as outlined in Section L:

• Quality of Service

• Timeliness of Performance

• Customer Satisfaction

• Business Relations/Integrity/Effective Management

• Ability to Manage Cost/Control Cost

The elements under Past Performance are not separately weighted or separately rated and are equally important under that specific factor. All elements should be addressed and will be evaluated as part of the factor.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s and (if applicable) its principal subcontractor's or teaming members demonstrated past performance in delivering quality services and in meeting technical, cost/price, and schedule requirements on services deemed relevant to the SIR requirements. The past performance risk will address the probability of the Offeror successfully accomplishing the SIR requirements based on recent, relevant past performance. Problems not addressed and/or resolved by the Offeror will be considered to still exist. If applicable, the degree to which the Offeror can

M-10 demonstrate that it has successfully applied continuous systemic improvement to resolve past performance problems will be evaluated.

Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a past performance factor with a “High Risk” Past Performance Rating will result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition.

Each proposal volume will be evaluated against the requirements of the SIR and the evaluation factors and their sub-factors, and each proposal volume, except for the Price Proposal, will be given an overall rating at the proposal volume level. Volume ...