Attachment 8 - Method of Evaluation.pdf

ATTACHMENT 8

METHOD OF EVALUATION

1. METHOD OF EVALUATION

The FAA will evaluate each Respondent’s Concept Paper based on its response to the Phase 1

Challenge 1 Criteria set forth in this Announcement. Each Respondent must address all aspects of each Criteria of the Phase 1 Challenge 1 Concept Paper. Respondents will be evaluated using a Meets/Does Not Meet basis for each of the three (3) Criteria below. The use of a

Meets/Does Not Meet rating applies only to the Phase 1 evaluation and does not constitute a selection for award.

Submissions must provide full, accurate, and complete information as set forth in this

Announcement, including attachments.

The FAA will review all submissions to ensure completeness, response to all elements, and adherence to the instructions set forth in this Announcement. Only those Respondents rated

“Meets” for all three (3) Criteria will be eligible for Phase 1 Challenge 2 consideration. Any

Respondent rated “Does Not Meet” for any of the three (3) Criteria will be eliminated from further consideration of this Challenge Based Acquisition (ChBA).

The Government reserves the right to seek clarifications for minor clerical or administrative errors; however, substantive deficiencies will not be cured through post-submission exchanges.

Criteria 1, Minimum Organizational Requirements Table

As part of the challenge response submissions, the Respondent was required to submit a completed Minimum Organizational Requirements Table.

Respondents will be rated “Meets” for Criteria 1 if the Respondent responds “Yes” to every question in the Minimum Organizational Requirements Table.

Respondents should indicate “Yes” only if the capability currently exists or can be demonstrably delivered within the defined project timeline without material developmental risk. Examples include (but are not limited to):

• FAA-specific system integrations

• Tailored Flight Service Station workflows for telephone briefings

• Active VFR flight plan monitoring and overdue alerting

• Custom compliance reporting or audit logs

Unsupported assertions or generalized statements of intent will not be sufficient to substantiate a “Yes” response.

Respondents will be rated “Does Not Meet” for Criteria 1 if the Respondent responds “No” or fails to respond to any question in the Table.

Submissions containing any deviation from the provided Table may result in the elimination of the Respondent for Phase 1 Challenge 2 consideration.

Any Respondent whose Minimum Organizational Requirements Table is rated “Does Not

Meet” will be eliminated from further consideration of this ChBA. No evaluation of the other

Criteria will take place for any Respondent rated “Does Not Meet for Criteria 1.

Only those Respondents whose Minimum Organizational Requirements Tables are rated

“Meets” for Criteria 1 will be eligible for Phase 1 Challenge 2 consideration.

Criteria 2, Technical Solution

The Respondent’s Concept Paper will be evaluated on its responses to Criteria 2, Technical

Solution.

The Respondent’s Technical Solution will be evaluated to determine whether it provides a technically feasible, operationally viable, and commercially mature solution supported by clear, realistic, and sufficiently detailed narratives including specific examples that successfully demonstrate its proposed technical solution. This technical solution narrative will be evaluated to determine whether it meets the requirements set forth in this Announcement, to include:

a. Describing the functionality of the product and its existing customers and their durations of use. Include relevant prior experience within the last five (5) years that demonstrate capabilities in delivering cloud-based, operationally critical systems, covering aviation weather services, aeronautical information management, flight planning, or real-time monitoring systems. (This can include

GA and Commercial pilot-facing platforms or Enterprise and Government and adaptations);

b. Describing how Respondent’s product can contribute to the Alaska Flight Service the NAS today and how it would evolve to meet the full Alaska Flight Service operations and requirements;

c. Providing the estimated percentage of AAC functions already met and in what functional areas;

d. Identifying dependencies (i.e., FAA interfaces, data approvals, etc.) that may affect the implementation within the requisite timeline;

e. Providing any additional capabilities that exceed the functional requirements of the core objectives, as set forth in the SOO and/or the AAC Automation

Requirements Document, beyond AAC’s scope; and

f. Describing current web-based, cloud architecture and technology stack and how Respondent envisions it may need to be changed to work within the Alaska

Flight Service.

Respondents will be rated “Meets” for Criteria 2 if the Respondent’s submission provides a narrative and examples demonstrating its technical solution and addressing each aspect (a – f) of Criteria 2.

Respondents will be rated “Does Not Meet” for Criteria 2 if the Respondent’s submission does not provide a narrative or examples demonstrating its technical solution and f failing to clearly demonstrate technical feasibility, schedule realism, and alignment with the functional objectives of the SOO and Automation Requirements Document in addressing each aspect (a

– f) of Criteria 2.

Any Respondent whose Criteria 2 is rated “Does Not Meet” will be eliminated from further consideration of this ChBA. No evaluation of the other Criteria will take place for any

Respondent rated “Does Not Meet” for Criteria 2.

Only those Respondents whose Criteria 2 is rated “Meets” will be eligible for Phase 1

Challenge 2 consideration.

Criteria 3, Business Model

The Respondent’s Concept Paper will be evaluated on its responses to Criteria 3, Business

Model.

The Respondent’s Business Model will be evaluated to determine whether it provides a narrative and specific examples that successfully demonstrate its proposed business model meets the requirements set forth in this Announcement, to include:

a. Describing Respondent’s business model and demonstrating clearly how this model is cost-effective , scalable, and sustainable while providing best value to the

Government;

b. Demonstrating clearly how the Respondent’s team structure and personnel expertise support the business model and requirements in the SOO;

c. Identify Respondent’s adherence to the security controls for Government cloud solutions or obtain security authorization through an approved FAA cloud solution;

d. Identifying Respondent’s best practices for supporting their Customers or the

Government; and

e. Identifying what Respondent believes the biggest risk(s) to the Government are and how Respondent would mitigate those risks.

Respondents will be rated “Meets” for Criteria 3 if the Respondent’s submission provides a narrative and examples demonstrating its business model and addressing each aspect (a – e) of

Criteria 3.

Respondents will be rated “Does Not Meet” for Criteria 3 if the Respondent’s submission does not provide a narrative or examples demonstrating its business model and addressing each aspect

(a – e) of Criteria 3.

Any Respondent whose Criteria 3 is rated “Does Not Meet” will be eliminated from further consideration of this ChBA.

Only those Respondents whose Criteria 3 is rated “Meets” will be eligible for Phase 1

Challenge 2 consideration.