Attachment 5 - Draft SIR - Section M (Release).docx

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SIR 693KA7-23-R-00002

Surface Movement Radar, Model 4 (SMR4) Section M: Evaluation Factors for Award

M-i

CLAUSES AND PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (AMS 3.1-1)

This Screening Information Request (SIR) or solicitation, 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. Upon request, the Contracting Officer (CO) will make the full text available, or Offerors and contractors may also obtain the full text via the Internet at: https://fast.faa.gov/contractclauses.cfm. On this webpage, select “Download All”, then “Download.”

BASIS FOR AWARD

Selection and Award This acquisition is conducted in accordance with the FAA Acquisition Management System (AMS).

FAA anticipates awarding a single contract for this procurement. The FAA also reserves the right to reject any or all offers and to waive any requirement, minor irregularity, or discrepancy if it is in the best interest of the FAA to do so.

The Offeror must clearly address each factor, sub-factor and element identified in Section L and M. Any proposal failing to address all of the factors, sub-factors and elements may be indicative of the Offeror's lack of understanding in response to the FAA’s requirements and may be considered unacceptable.

Offerors are advised that the FAA reserves the right to make an award based on initial proposals received, without additional communications, discussions, or negotiations.

Compliance Review The FAA may down-select to those Offeror’s most likely to receive an award after the completion of the proposal compliance review. During the compliance review, each volume of the Offeror proposals 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. Any proposals exceeding the page limit requirements identified in Section L will not be evaluated beyond the page limitation. The FAA will review the Technical Compliance Worksheet for completeness, the magnitude of the effort required to modify the proposed solution to meet all requirements and sufficiency of the information provided to assess the proposal.

Eligibility for Consideration The FAA will perform an initial screening to identify proposals that will continue through the evaluation in accordance with the evaluation criteria in this document. To be considered for this procurement, the Offeror must provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that its proposed Surface Movement Radar (SMR) system is currently operational and in use by an Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) to provide surface surveillance in support of Air Traffic services or is derived from that operational production baseline in accordance with the requirements in Section L.7. The FAA will validate with the ANSP the information provided by the Offeror. If the FAA determines that an Offeror fails to demonstrate these requirements (Volume V), their proposal will not be evaluated, and the Offeror will not be eligible for further consideration for award.

Best Value/Trade Off Award, if any, will be made to the responsive and responsible Offeror whose evaluated proposal conforms to the terms of this SIR and whose proposed solution represents the best value to the Government. The FAA reserves the right to identify risks throughout the evaluation process and consider them in the Best Value Analysis.

The best value approach provides the opportunity for trade-offs and does not require that award be made to either the Offeror submitting the highest rated technical proposal or the Offeror submitting the lowest cost/price, although the ultimate award may be to either one of those offerors. Therefore, the lowest evaluated cost/price or the highest scored technical offeror may not necessarily provide the best value to the Government.

In determining best value, the Government will:

EVALUATION PROCESS

General Evaluations will be conducted using formal source selection procedures established by the Government, using the criteria identified in Section M. These procedures include the use of a source selection organization composed of a Source Selection Official (SSO) and a Source Evaluation Team.

Evaluation will include the following:

1) Perform compliance review (see Section M.2.2)

2) Utilizing the evaluation factors contained in this Section M, the Source Evaluation Team will assess each offeror using both information submitted by the Offeror as well as information obtained from outside sources including, but not limited to past performance information.

3) The Technical Evaluation Team will evaluate the Offeror’s Technical and Management Proposals, including each sub-factor, and assign a score and points based on Table 1: Technical and Management Factor and Sub-factor Scores.

4) The Cost and Price Evaluation Team will assess the Offeror’s cost and price proposal, including each sub-factor, for a determination of reasonableness.

5) The Past Performance Evaluation Team will assess the Offeror’s past performance, and assign a rating based on Table 2: Past Performance Factor Ratings.

6) The Source Evaluation Team will review the compiled results from all evaluation factors and present a recommendation to the Source Selection Official (SSO), who will select the offer providing the best value to the Government.

The Government reserves the right to remove any Offeror’s proposal from further consideration at any time prior to the final award decision for any of the reasons set forth in the SIR as grounds for disqualification. A less than satisfactory rating received in any one of the sub-factors in the Technical Proposal, a rating of unacceptable for Past Performance, or an Offeror’s price that is determined to not be reasonable will make the Offeror ineligible for contract award. Furthermore, if at any point during the evaluation process the Government concludes that an Offeror does not have a reasonable chance of receiving this award, the Government may eliminate the Offeror from further consideration for award. In such instance, the Contracting Officer will officially notify, in writing, any Offeror disqualified from further consideration.

Offeror Communications Certain Offeror communications may necessitate amendments to the SIR. All competing Offerors will be notified by amendment to the SIR and the Contracting Officer will establish a date of receipt for all resulting Offeror revisions.

Offerors should not assume that they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss, or revise their proposals. Any information obtained during communications may, as appropriate, be used to clarify, substantiate, and validate information provided in an Offeror’s proposal.

The FAA reserves the right to conduct discussions with one or more Offerors without requiring discussions with all Offerors. Responses to questions from one Offeror may, as appropriate, be shared with all Offerors, if doing so will help to ensure fairness in the acquisition process.

DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBILITY

To be eligible for award, an Offeror must be determined by the Contracting Officer to be a responsible contractor in accordance with the FAA Acquisition Management System (AMS), Section T.3.2.2.7 – Contractor Qualifications.

Determination The CO will assess Offeror proposals for information to determine responsibility. Offerors should ensure it has included any appropriate documentation to support the Offeror:

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;

d) Appropriate safety programs; and

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

In the event an Offeror is deemed non-responsible, that Offeror may, as appropriate, be notified and removed from further participation in this procurement.

Other Sources of Data In accordance with AMS Guidance T3.2.2.7A1 Responsibility Determination of Prospective Contractors, the CO may use the following additional 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.

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

4) Electronic systems such as the System for Award Management.

EVALUATION ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

All evaluation factors and sub-factors will be considered in the evaluation for award. The evaluation factors and sub-factors are listed in descending order of importance. Technical is more important than Past Performance; which is more important than Management; all of which are more important than Cost and Price. As differences between non-price factors become smaller, the importance of the Price Factor increases.

Factor 1 – Technical The Technical Factor consists of five sub-factors listed in order of importance from most to least, as follows:

Sub-Factor 1 - Systems Engineering Design and Development Sub-Factor 2 - System Performance Sub-Factor 3 - System Test and Evaluation Sub-Factor 4 - Implementation Sub-Factor 5 - Lifecycle Support Factor 2 – Past Performance The Past Performance Factor does not contain any sub-factors – it is a single factor.

Factor 3 – Management The Management Factor consists of four sub-factors, listed in descending order of importance as follows:

Sub-Factor 1 - Program Management Sub-Factor 2 - Draft Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) Sub-Factor 3 - Offeror's Risk, Issue, and Opportunity (RIO) Factor 4 – Cost and Price The cost and price factor does not include any sub-factors.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

General Evaluation Criteria The evaluation of the Technical and Management Factors will utilize the following general criteria to reflect the understanding of the requirement, the soundness of the offered approach and the completeness of the proposed solution:

1) Approach: The degree to which the proposal demonstrates comprehension of the requirements and provides a viable plan and means for a successful program, including required resources.

2) Understanding: The degree to which the approach for implementing the requirements is logical, feasible, realistic, and indicative of a full comprehension of the SIR and technical requirements.

3) Completeness: The degree to which the approach and methodology addresses all the requirements and provides supporting analysis for how the requirements will be achieved in a logical manner to implement a successful program.

4) Soundness: The validity and achievability of the selected approach. The degree to which the technical, performance, and schedule risks are identified and mitigated.

Definitions The following definitions apply throughout the evaluation process to identify strengths or weaknesses in proposals:

Risk and Opportunity Assessment The FAA will perform a risk and opportunity assessment throughout the Offeror’s proposal. Risks and opportunities are defined as:

1) Risk: An item found within an Offeror's proposal that, when assessed as to its probability of occurrence and its effect, presents an uncertainty as to the ability of the Offeror to successfully perform the required effort or the proposed approach.

2) Opportunity: An opportunity is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that has a probability of occurring that may have a positive impact to the successful accomplishment of the SIR requirements.

Risks and opportunities identified within any aspect of the Offeror’s proposal will be assessed as to their overall positive or negative impact to include cost/price, schedule, and technical performance and likelihood of occurrence.

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL FACTOR CRITERIA– VOLUME I

Factor 1 - Technical Evaluation Criteria The FAA will evaluate and score the technical proposals based on the following sub-factors.

Sub-factor 1: Systems Engineering Design and Development The FAA will assess the degree to which the Offeror:

1) Demonstrates that the proposed SMR architecture meets the functional and performance requirements specified in SMR4 System Specification, FAA-E-XXXX (Attachment J-5).

a. The FAA will use the Offeror provided SMR4 System Specification Crosswalk (Attachment J-XX) to assess the extent to which the proposed SMR4 will require architecture, hardware, and software modifications to meet the requirements in FAA-E-XXXX (Attachment J-5).

b. Detailed explanation of the scope of development required for the Offeror’s system to meet the performance requirements of FAA-E-XXXX (Attachment J-5).

c.

2) Demonstrates a comprehensive Engineering Process, including the following:

a. An approach for conducting a fully integrated engineering effort to meet the SMR4 System Specification.

b. Strategies that will be employed during the design and development process to reduce risk and to meet cost, performance, and scheduling milestones

3) Demonstrates a comprehensive and viable approach to their Software Engineering and Development Process, including

a. Methodology for project tracking, quality control, and configuration management including compliance with RTCA/DO-278A AL4

b. Approach for producing certifiable software and all aspects of the software life cycle processes to include planning, development, and verification

c. Developing an interface with existing NAS Surface Surveillance systems, including both ASDE-X and ASSC, that is achievable and ensures data and performance integrity

4) Data Rights to Source Code, Software, and Firmware

a. The Government will assess the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates an understanding of the required transfer of data rights for source code, software, firmware, COTS software-firmware, and related hardware and software technical documentation.

5) Describes how the Offeror plans to develop and implement the security requirements in the SMR4 System Specification.

6) Demonstrates the ability of the proposed system to address the key parameters identified in Section L.18.2.1.6.

a. Clearly defined features of the Offeror’s system for minimizing false targets due to clutter, weather, radio frequency interference, and multipath.

b. Clearly defined capabilities the Offeror’s system has for minimizing interference with other SMRs operating within the same frequency band.

c. Clearly defined features the Offeror’s system has for mitigating with multiple time around clutter and time sidelobes.

d. Detailed explanation of how the Offeror’s system performs plot extraction and the impact on target resolution. Include how large plot integrity is maintained and the ability to distinguish smaller targets in proximity to other targets (e.g., vehicle and aircraft).

e. Detailed explanation as to how the Offeror’s system handles merging and unmerging of target tracks.

f. Detailed explanation of the redundancy capabilities of the Offeror’s system.

g. Detailed explanation of the Offeror’s Antenna Array anti-icing capabilities, including Antenna Array Heater options and functionality.

Sub-factor 2: System Performance The FAA will evaluate performance of the Offeror's system as demonstrated in the provided test data. The FAA will assess system performance with respect to the following key performance parameters:

1) Coverage Volume

2) Probability of Detection

3) Range and Azimuth Resolution

4) Positional Accuracy

5) False Tracks Sub-factor 3: System Test and Evaluation The FAA will assess the degree to which the Offeror:

1) Demonstrates a viable test program, including major components, processes, procedures, and the tests necessary to validate that the SMR4 meets the system design and performance requirements as delineated in FAA-E-XXXX (Attachment J-5) and the test program defined in the SOW. This includes resource allocation, test staffing, facilities, equipment, and test tools to ensure achievement of test planning and conduct in accordance with required schedules.

2) Demonstrates an understanding of the planned sequence of test activities by phase (e.g. development (in-plant and on-site), production acceptance and site acceptance test), including test events, test locations, durations, interdependencies, and integration of subsystems.

3) Demonstrates an understanding of all test tools, both hardware and software, required to complete the proposed test program. The FAA will assess the impact of any test tool development required to meet test program needs with respect to the effort associated with development and validation.

4) Demonstrates a viable test facility to be used for in-plant development test. Including any testing limitations with respect to requirements verification.

5) Demonstrates an understanding of the specific test methodologies to be employed (demonstration, test, analysis, inspection, test with data, and design review) to verify that all FAA-E-XXXX (Attachment J-5) requirements are met.

6) Demonstrates effective quality assurance and configuration management processes to be used for testing throughout the contract.

7) Demonstrates effective regression testing processes to effectively address system deficiencies, anomalies, and test failures.

Sub-factor 4: Site Implementation The FAA will assess the degree to which the Offeror:

1) Demonstrates a comprehensive approach, including plans, processes, and schedule (including assumptions) for site preparation, installation, integration, optimization, site testing, and acceptance for implementation of the SMR4 at all operational site configurations. This includes plans for integrating and prioritizing Government airport and contractor activities to meet or exceed planned schedules.

2) Demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the plans and processes to address implementation requirements based on the SMR4 Implementation Process Flow (Attachment J-XX).

3) Provides a viable approach to efficiently install and optimize the SMR4 into an operational environment while minimizing impacts to Air Traffic and local airport operations during SMR4 implementation.

Sub-factor 5: Lifecycle Support The FAA will assess the degree to which the Offeror:

1) Demonstrates a viable approach for developing a training program that ensures technical personnel responsible for maintenance and certification on equipment used in the NAS are proficient in performing their assigned duties.

2) Demonstrates a viable approach to developing a training program that ensures NAS Engineers gain the capability to provide second level engineering support to Technical Operations personnel throughout the system lifecycle.

3) Demonstrates a comprehensive approach for ensuring supply support information and activities enable Interim Contractor Depot Level Support (ICDLS) and the transition of depot functions to the FAA Logistics Center.

4) Demonstrates a comprehensive approach for developing Technical Instruction Books that ensures technical personnel responsible for maintenance on equipment used in the NAS have accurate reference materials.

FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA –VOLUME II

Factor 2, Past Performance will include the evaluation of both the Offeror’s past performance as well as its relevant experience. Offerors are to note that in conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the FAA may use information provided by the Offeror, information included by the Offeror’s customers on completed questionnaires, and data obtained from other sources. If the Offeror receives a past performance assessment of “No Confidence” that Offeror will be ineligible for award.

FACTOR 3 – MANAGEMENT EVALUATION CRITERIA –VOLUME III

The Offeror’s Volume III contains the Management Factor Proposal and will be evaluated to assess each Offeror’s understanding of the work to be performed under the resultant contract. The Offeror’s Volume III will be evaluated to obtain capability information and to assess the Offeror’s response to the SIR. The FAA will assess the degree to which the Offeror’s approach addresses all of the subfactors of the Management Factor. The FAA will assess the Offeror’s proposal to determine the degree to which the Offeror provides supporting analysis for how the management requirements will be achieved and describes their capabilities to implement the ASDE-3 Surface Movement Radar (SMR) replacement with the new SMR, Version 4 program.

For each Volume III response, the FAA will:

1. Review, analyze, and consider all information received in response to the evaluation factor and its associated sub-factors and any information obtained from written communications.

1. Evaluate each Management Proposal sub-factor by assessing strengths and weaknesses noted for each sub-factor. These strengths and weaknesses will be considered in the determination of scores for each sub-factor. Scores will not be determined based on the quantity of strengths and weaknesses but will be based upon the overall impacts (positive and negative) of the combination of strengths and weaknesses. See Table 1, Technical and Management Factor and Sub-factor Scores, for definitions of the associated scores.

1. Score the Management Factor by summing the Management sub-factor scores.

Sub-factor 1: Program Management The FAA will assess the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates the following:

1) Demonstrates an effective approach and methodology for meeting program management requirements.

2) Provides detail and substantiation for the plans, organization, processes, resources, and metrics required to support effective program management.

3) Demonstrates an understanding of how to manage and integrate subcontractors for the seamless performance of work and communication to the FAA.

4) Provides detailed estimates of hours and labor categories by Contractor Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) for all Cost Reimbursable CLINs.

5) Provides resumes of key personnel in accordance with Section H.2.3 and Minimum Qualifications (Attachment J-32) with relevant experience and competency to provide leadership and direction in support of SMR4.

Sub-factor: 2 Draft Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) The FAA will assess the degree to which the Offeror:

1) Provides a comprehensive draft IMS with substantiation that identifies the contractor schedule and milestones to meet contract schedule requirements, including activities, critical path and internal dependencies for procurement, systems engineering, software development, systems integration, logistics, test, implementation, checkout and acceptance, production, and training.

2) Demonstrates traceability to the CWBS and identifies external interdependencies (e.g., FAA and suppliers).

3) Demonstrates an achievable approach for meeting first article and production milestones, to include the listing, quantities, and schedule of long-lead materials.

Sub-factor 3: Offer’s Risk, Issue, and Opportunity (RIO) The FAA will assess the degree to which the Offeror:

1) Demonstrates a comprehensive RIO assessment of the proposed approach to meet the requirements of the SIR.

2) Demonstrates an effective strategy and approach for managing cost, schedule, and technical performance RIOs for all program aspects. This includes development, integration, testing, security, first article delivery, installation, safety, production, delivery rate, and long lead-times for materials.

3) Provides a comprehensive list of all risks, issues and opportunities and corresponding mitigation strategies using the guidance from the Air Traffic Organization Program Management Organization Risk, Issue, and Opportunity Management Plan (ATO PMO RIO) (Attachment J-XX).

The FAA will assess the impact to which the Offeror:

4) Provides capabilities in addition to those that are required (enhanced capabilities) and as identified in the Offeror’s proposal based on their potential benefits to the NAS. The FAA will consider the enhanced capabilities as opportunities.

FACTOR AND SUBFACTOR SCORES

Technical and Management Factor and Subfactor Scores Technical evaluators will use adjectival ratings to score Offeror’s technical proposals. Sub-factors and factors will receive one of five (5) adjectival ratings: Excellent, Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, and Poor. The definitions and scores for the adjectival ratings are shown in the table below.

M-9

Table 1: Technical and Management Factor and Sub-factor Ratings

Excellent (9 - 10 points)

The Offeror’s response is comprehensive and demonstrates a thorough understanding of the full range of the requirements and work effort. The Offeror has convincingly demonstrated that its approach and solution, when implemented, would highly benefit the Government through effective and efficient performance under the contract. The Offeror’s response gives the Government the highest degree of confidence that the requirements will be met in a timely and cost-effective manner. The combined impact of the identified strengths greatly outweighs the impact of the identified weaknesses. Few, if any weaknesses have been identified.

Good (6 – 8 points) The Offeror’s response to the requirement is fully acceptable and responds to the full range of the requirements and work effort. The Offeror has demonstrated that its approach and solution, when implemented, would benefit the Government. The Offeror’s response gives the Government a strong degree of confidence that the requirements will be met in a timely and cost-effective manner. The combined impact of the identified strengths outweighs the impact of the identified weaknesses.

Satisfactory (4 -5 points)

The Offeror’s response is appropriate and adequately addresses the requirements and work effort. The Offeror’s response does not provide exceptional benefit or detriment the Government. The Offeror’s response gives the Government confidence that the requirements will be met in a timely and cost-effective manner. The combined impact of the identified strengths is equivalent to the impact of the identified weaknesses.

Marginal (3 – 2 points) The Offeror addresses the evaluation factor requirements; however, information provided does not clearly demonstrate capability, competency, or a logical plan to meet the requirements. The Offeror’s response presents doubt that the requirements can be met in a timely and cost-effective manner. Weaknesses are noted that could degrade performance. The combined impact of weaknesses outweigh the impact of any identified strengths.

Poor (0 – 1 point) The Offeror’s response is inadequate and does not demonstrate an understanding of the requirements. The Offeror’s response is vague and/or illogical. The Offeror’s response fails to adequately identify the capability to meet the requirements in a timely and cost effective manner. Weaknesses are noted that could significantly degrade performance. The combined impact of weaknesses greatly outweighs the impact of any strengths.

Past Performance Factor Ratings Past performance evaluators will rate past performance in accordance with the following ratings:

Table 2: Past Performance Factor Ratings

FACTOR 4: COST AND PRICE FACTOR – VOLUME IV

The FAA will evaluate proposed pricing of all CLINs for reasonableness, and review proposed pricing for balance, completeness, consistency, and traceability. Cost/Price proposals will not be scored or rated. 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.

1) 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.

2) 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.

3) 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.

4) 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.

Cost/Price Workbook Evaluation (Volume IV, Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4) 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 in order to ensure consistency of evaluation.

The FAA will evaluate the Offeror’s cost/price proposals using the populated Cost/Price Workbook (CPW) (Attachment J-XX) and additional supporting worksheets 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). The evaluation of options does not obligate the FAA to exercise the option(s). The TEP will be the sum of:

1) The Most Probable Cost (MPC) for priced CPFF CLINs;

2) Time and Materials (T&M) CLINS;

3) Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs; and

4) CLINs with FAA provided Not-to-Exceed amounts.

The FAA will evaluate any costs associated with the test and evaluation of each enhanced capability for reasonableness. The FAA reserves the right to include these costs in the trade-off as part of the best value determination.

The result of the cost realism evaluation will be a determination of the MPC to the FAA. As part of this process, the FAA will conduct a Quantitative and Qualitative (Q&Q) analysis of the proposal. The results of the Q&Q will be utilized in calculating the MPC. The MPC will be determined by adjusting the Offeror’s proposed cost to reflect any additions or reductions to the cost elements to realistic levels based on the result of the Q&Q analysis. The TEP, including the MPC, will be used in the trade-off evaluation to determine best value.

With respect to the T&M Rates, the FAA will evaluate proposed fully burdened labor rates populated in Tab J-XX for reasonableness.

For the T&M and FFP CLINs, the FAA reserves the right to perform price realism in accordance with AMS T.3.2.3(A)(1)(i)(3). The FAA reserves the right to conduct cost analysis if necessary to ensure a fair and reasonable price and to support the price realism analysis. This may require the FAA to request additional information from the Offerors.

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

If the FAA determines the proposed price to be unrealistically low, the proposal may be eliminated from competition on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirements or has developed and submitted an impracticable and/or unsubstantiated proposal.

Review of Fee Structure (CPFF CLINs only) For each CPFF CLIN, the FAA will review the proposed fees, which will be part of the MPC.

Cost/Price Assumptions, Estimating Methodology, Deviations, and Contingencies (Volume IV) The FAA reserves the right to reject any request for any exceptions, deviations, or assumption. 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.

M-13