Attachment 2 Evaluation Factors.docx

UNCLASSIFIED

Evaluation Criteria

RFP HM157525R0016

Evaluation Factors for Award:

The Government intends to award based upon a Best Value Trade-Off evaluation utilizing Technical and Price. Following receipt of proposal, the Government will evaluate the Technical factor and Price factor to determine the best value for the Government. Relative Importance of the Factors: Factors are listed in order of importance. The Technical factor is significantly more important than the Price factor. All Factor 1 Sub-Factors are weighted equally.

Proposals submitted in response to the RFP will be evaluated against the following Factors and Sub-factors:

Factor 1: Technical

· Sub-factor 1.1: Demonstrate possession of a Type 1 LOA from the FAA or equivalent organization

· Sub-factor 1.2: Demonstrate ISO 9001 Certification or equivalent Quality Management System (QMS), compliance

· Sub-factor 1.3: Demonstrate experience working with the DAFIF Specification

· Sub-factor 1.4 Demonstrate technical experience with RTCA Document (DO) -200B Standards for Processing Aeronautical Data

· Sub-factor 1.5 Demonstrate technical experience with RTCA DO-201B User Requirements for Navigation Data

· Sub-factor 1.6 Demonstrate technical experience with FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 20-153B Acceptance of Aeronautical Processes and Associated Databases

· Sub-factor 1.7: Demonstrate experience Working with the ARINC 424 series specifications

Factor 2: Price

Factor 1 – Technical

Each Technical Sub-factor as defined below will be evaluated for strengths and weaknesses (see Table A).

Sub-factor 1.1: Demonstrate possession of a Type 1 LOA from the FAA or equivalent organization. Provide documentary evidence of a Type 1 LOA.

Sub-factor 1.2: Demonstrate ISO 9001 Certification or equivalent Quality Management System (QMS) compliance. Provide documentary evidence of an ISO 9001 certification, or equivalent QMS process certification.

Sub-factor 1.3: Demonstrate experience working with the DAFIF Specification. Provide a comprehensive portfolio that demonstrates experience working with the DAFIF series of product specifications.

Sub-factor 1.4 Demonstrate technical experience with RTCA Document (DO) -200B Standards for Processing Aeronautical Data. Provide a comprehensive portfolio that demonstrates working knowledge and experience with the RTCA DO-200B that supports training, auditing, and implementation of the standard.

Sub-factor 1.5 Demonstrate technical experience with RTCA DO-201B User Requirements for Navigation Data. Provide a comprehensive portfolio that demonstrates working knowledge and experience with the RTCA DO-201B that supports training, auditing, and implementation of the standard.

Sub-factor 1.6 Demonstrate technical experience with FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 20-153B Acceptance of Aeronautical Processes and Associated Databases. Provide a comprehensive portfolio that demonstrates working knowledge and experience with the AC 20-153B that supports training, auditing, and implementation of the AC.

Sub-factor 1.7: Demonstrate experience Working with the ARINC 424 series specifications. Provide a comprehensive portfolio that demonstrates working knowledge and experience with the ARINC 424 series of product specifications, including the XML specification version if applicable.

Factor 2 – Price

The offered price will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete and/or unreasonable will not be considered for award. The Offeror that proposes the Lowest TEP will be considered to have offered the lowest price to the Government.

Table A – Degrees of Strengths and Weaknesses

Significant Strength (+ + +) An aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be significantly advantageous to the Government during contract performance (or may significantly decrease the risk of unsuccessful contract performance).

Major Strength An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be moderately advantageous to the Government during contract performance (and/or may moderately decrease the risk of unsuccessful contract performance).

Minor Strength (+) An aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be slightly advantageous to the Government during contract performance (and/or may slightly decrease the risk of unsuccessful contract performance).

Major Weakness A flaw in the proposal that moderately increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.