Attachment 0003 - Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation Factors for Award.docx

A. BASIS FOR AWARD (Evaluation Criteria): reference FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation, Attachment 0003 of the RFP.

The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price, and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

1. Any award will be made on the best overall (i.e. FAR 15.101-1 Best Value Trade-Off) proposals that are determined to be in the best interest of the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the evaluation factors: Requirements Understanding/Approach (Technical Approach, Past Performance, and Price).

2. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will make the “best” value determination after an integrated assessment of the three evaluation factors.

3. To receive consideration for award, an Offeror must not receive “Unacceptable” for any of the following: Requirements Understanding/Approach (Technical Approach, Past Performance, and Price).

4. Offerors are cautioned that an award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price Offeror, or if non-price factors are evaluated as comparatively equal between two or more Offerors, price may become a determinative factor.

5. Volume I – Technical Approach is significantly more important than Volume II – Past Performance. Note: All non-priced factors combined are considered significantly more important than Price.

6. The Government intends to award without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)); therefore; the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical and price standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines they are necessary and in the best interest of the Government.

B. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Factor 1 Technical Approach: A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph B of this section.

The Technical Approach factor is further divided into the following subfactors:

a. Subfactor 1, Training Support Capabilities

b. Subfactor 2, Operational Capabilities

c. Subfactor 3, Air Traffic Control Capabilities

Evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal shall address each Technical Approach subfactor as it applies to the Performance Work Statement (PWS). A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign each Technical Approach subfactor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 2 Past Performance: A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph B of this section.

Factor 3 Cost and Price - Each Offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST).

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

2. Volume I - The Technical Approach factor is divided into the following subfactors:

Subfactor 1: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed Offeror’s Training Support capabilities by providing all necessary training materials, testing materials and tracking plans necessary for Air Traffic Control, Weather Observing and ATCALS Maintenance for the basic contract period and all option years. Marginal levels of overall Training Support could indicate a lack of understanding concerning mission requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range. The evaluation will focus on the Offerors’:

1. KEY POINT #1 WITH DESCRIPTION: The Contractor shall provide all necessary training materials, testing materials and tracking plans necessary for Air Traffic Control, Weather Observing and ATCALS Maintenance. Each Site Manager/Lead Technician shall maintain a record of all maintenance functions, (Preventive Maintenance Inspections (PMI), scheduled/unscheduled maintenance) and retain that record for the life of the contract.

1. KEY POINT #2 WITH DESCRIPTION: ATCALS Maintenance Training. The Contractor shall ensure ATCALS technicians maintain proficiency on their assigned equipment. All technicians require documented training on equipment maintained by the particular site assigned. Technicians shall have 100% task coverage within 6 months of start of contract or new employment.

1. KEY POINT #3 WITH DESCRIPTION : ATC and Weather Observing Training. The Contractor shall: develop and utilize site-specific facility training guides for tower controllers; provide NWS or FAA training and training guides for weather observer certifications (where applicable); provide a Site Manager/alternate training program as identified in 5.3.3.1 of the PWS.

1.

Subfactor 2: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s Operational abilities. Major emphasis will be placed on the following:

1. KEY POINT #1 WITH DESCRIPTION: Weather Observing Service. The contractor shall provide weather observing services at the following locations: Quonset State Airport, RI, Ellington Airport, TX, Eastern West Virginia Regional Airport, WV, and Rickenbacker Airport, OH. These sites all require controllers who are Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certified aviation weather observers. These observers provide local weather aviation reports and are certified to augment an automated system or provide manual observations.

1. KEY POINT #2 WITH DESCRIPTION: Weather Reporting Responsibilities. The contractor shall be responsible for the overall management and coordination of the weather observation services portion of this PWS. The contractor shall designate a responsible individual to act for him/her pending personal receipt of National Weather Service (NWS) or Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certification as applicable.

1. KEY POINT #3 WITH DESCRIPTION: Site Management/Maintenance. The contractor shall perform ATCALS site management/maintenance (at Ellington Airport, TX, Francis S. Gabreski Airport, NY, Eastern West Virginia Regional Airport, Martinsburg, WV, Quonset State Airport, Kingstown, RI, Rickenbacker International Airport, Columbus, OH, and Burlington International Airport, Burlington VT.

Subfactor 3: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s Air Traffic Control: The contractor shall provide Air Traffic Control services at Quonset State Airport, RI, Ellington Airport, TX, Eastern West Virginia Regional Airport, WV, and Rickenbacker Airport, OH. The evaluation will focus on the Offerors’:

1. KEY POINT #1 WITH DESCRIPTION: ATC Site Management: Each specific ATC site shall have a Site Manager. Each Site Manager shall also designate an alternate who can act on behalf of the Site Manager during the manager’s absence. Each Site Manager shall maintain control tower facility rating and proficiency. Each Site Manager shall maintain National Weather Service or equivalent FAA weather observer currency (where applicable) as stated in 5.3.1.1.1 of the PWS.

1. KEY POINT #2 WITH DESCRIPTION: Air Traffic Controllers/Weather Observers. The contractor shall provide Air Traffic Controllers/Weather Observers at each location for air traffic tower operations. Air Traffic Controllers who function as Weather Observers/augment automated weather systems shall obtain National Weather Service or FAA weather observer certification as applicable and maintain currency meeting required ATC proficiency thresholds specified in FAA JO 7900.5, Surface Weather Observing.

1. KEY POINT #3 WITH DESCRIPTION: ATC/Weather/ATCALS Requested Briefings. The contractor shall provide technical support for current air traffic control matters as they apply to day-to-day contract operations and facilities usage. Provide ATC and ATCALS briefings to responsible authority (AOB, Airport Management, Operations, Safety, etc.) when requested.

In accordance with the Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3), Section 3.1, the Army methodology for evaluating Technical Approach and Related Risk is the Combined Technical/Risk Rating, (see Table 1 below). This methodology considers risk, in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/OPERATIONAL RISK RATINGS

(1) or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is un-awardable.

3. Volume II - Past Performance Factor. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS.

a. Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Appendix D.

b. The Government will focus its inquiries on the Offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements including cost, schedule, performance, management of subcontractors and compliance with FAR 52.219-8, and FAR 52.219-9. For the purposes of this SSP/Requirement, major subcontractors are defined as members of an Offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform 15% percent or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, Offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past three years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror will be assigned a “neutral confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the Offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the NAICS code 488111-Air Traffic Control.

c. Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime Offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past three (3) years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

d. The past performance factor considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality.

i. Recency. The Government will evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. Recency is defined as work performed not more three years prior to the date of the RFP issuance. A separate recency rating will not be given, rather, the past performance confidence rating (para iv below) is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. Past performance older than three years will not be considered.

ii. Relevancy. The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to this effort. Aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to: similarity of service, complexity, and dollar value. The Government will assign Past Performance Relevancy Ratings as outlined in Table 2 below.

iii. Quality: The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offerors’ performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. A separate quality rating will not be given, rather the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

iv. If a submitted contract does not meet the above relevancy and currency criteria, the past contract/task order will not be considered relevant and/or current. In addition, relevant contracts/task orders that are more closely aligned with the effort under this procurement will be more favorably evaluated.

Table 2 - Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

e. Performance Confidence Assessment: The Government will assign Performance Confidence ratings as outlined in in Table 3 below. “Acceptable” – Green – Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives

TABLE 3 - Performance Confidence Assessments

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

4. Volume III - Price Factor. Price will not be scored or adjectivally rated. Evaluation of Price will be performed using one or more of the price analysis techniques identified in FAR 15.404-1. Through these techniques the Government will determine whether prices are fair and reasonable.

a. The RFP requires firm-fixed price contract line items. The Government’s price evaluation will be conducted using the Offeror’s proposed Pricing Table and Pricing Module, with proposed fully burdened labor rates applied to the estimated labor hours for the base period and each option year of the contract, to achieve a Total Evaluated Contract Price.

b. Options. To arrive at a Total Evaluated Price the Government will evaluate offers, for award purposes, by adding the total price of all option CLINs to the total price for the base CLIN. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

c. Utilization of 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. Circumstances may arise that require the Contracting Officer to utilize FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, upon the performance end date of Option Period 4, for no more than six months. Pricing for an additional six months will be evaluated based from pricing proposed for Option Period 4 by adding one-half of the Offeror's final option period price to the Offeror's total price. Thus, the Offeror's total price for the purpose of evaluation will include the base period, 1st option, 2nd option, 3rd option, 4th option, and 1/2 of the 4th option.

5. A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.