BNATCS_DRAFT SIR_Section M.pdf

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M. 1 AMS 3.1-1 CLAUSES AND PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

(JULY 2019)

M. 2 Determination of Responsibility

M. 3 Basis for Award

M.3.1 Source Selection Process

M.3.2 Basis for Exclusion from Award Consideration

M.3.3 Assessment of Risk and Opportunities

M.3.4 Evaluation Factors and Order of Importance

M.3.4.1 Volume I – Technical

M. 4 Reserved

M. 5 Volume I: Technical Evaluation Process

M.5.1 Part A: Technical Factors

M.5.1.1 Factor 1: Team Capability and Business Model

M.5.1.2 Factor 2: Acquisition Systems and Strategy

M.5.1.3 Factor 3: Systems Integration Approach

M.5.1.4 Factor 4: Oral Presentation

M.5.2 Technical Evaluation Ratings

M. 6 Volume II Cost/Price Evaluation Process

M.6.1 Cost Model and TEP

M.6.2 Employee Compensation vs. Overhead/General and Administrative (G&A)

M.6.3 Invoices

M.6.4 Reserved

M.6.5 Reserved

M.6.6 Price Assumptions, Deviations, and Contingencies

M. 7 Volume III: Past Performance Evaluation Process

M.7.1 Past Performance Evaluation Criteria

M.7.2 Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

M. 8 Small Business Goals and Utilization

M. 9 Definitions

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M. 1 AMS 3.1-1 CLAUSES AND PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

(JULY 2019)

This screening information request (SIR) or contract, 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 will make the full text available, or offerors and contractors may obtain the full text via Internet at: https://fast.faa.gov/contractclauses.cfm.

3.2.4-31 Evaluation of Options (October 2024) 3.3.1-30 Progress Payments Not Included (October 2024)

M. 2 Determination of Responsibility

In accordance with Acquisition Management Policy 3.2.2.2, prior to award of any contract, the Contracting Officer will make a determination of responsibility. As a minimum, to be determined responsible, a prospective Offeror must:

• Has or can obtain adequate financial resources to perform the contract;

• Has the ability to meet any required or proposed delivery schedules;

• Has a satisfactory performance history;

• Have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics;

• Has appropriate accounting and operational controls that may include, but are not limited to: production control, property control systems, quality assurance programs, and appropriate safety programs; and

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

M. 3 Basis for Award This acquisition is being conducted in accordance with the FAA Acquisition Management System (AMS) which includes the ability to provide waivers wherever necessary. The FAA intends to maximize statutory flexibilities. Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is judged to represent the best value to the FAA. The best value determination will be based on the evaluation of each Offeror’s proposal in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section M. Best value describes the solution that is the most advantageous to the FAA based on the evaluation of technical quality, past performance, total evaluated price, and the other criteria set forth in Section M. It does not require that an award be made to either the Offeror submitting the highest rated technical solution or to the Offeror submitting the lowest cost/price, i.e., the cost/price proposal with the lowest total evaluated price may not be the judged to represent the best value to https://fast.faa.gov/contractclauses.cfm the FAA. The FAA will strive for maximum objectivity. However, the source selection process is by nature subjective and professional judgment will be applied throughout the entire process.

The FAA intends to select one or more Offerors for contract award. The FAA reserves the right to not award a contract for any reason. If, after award, performance of the awardee is unsatisfactory in any area, the FAA reserves the right to immediately award a contract to the next highest-rated available Offeror. This does not necessitate termination nor is this provision dependent upon it.

Offerors are advised that the FAA reserves the right to make an award based on initial proposals received, without communications (including but not limited to clarification requests). The FAA may communicate with Offerors orally or in writing during the evaluation. The Government reserves the right to conduct communications, discussions, and negotiations with one, some, or all competing Offerors. Responses to FAA issued communications, discussions, or negotiations may be used in the evaluation of the proposals. Communications with one or more Offerors do not necessitate communications with other Offerors. Offerors must not assume that they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss, or revise their proposal. Therefore, it is critical that each proposal be fully responsive to the solicitation and its provisions. Offerors are instructed to submit proposals with their most favorable cost and non-cost terms. Offerors are hereby notified that alternate proposals will not be evaluated for this award.

The FAA reserves the right to: (i) reject any and all offers, (ii) waive any requirements, and (iii) accept minor irregularities and discrepancies if it is determined to be in the best interest of the FAA to do so.

M.3.1 Source Selection Process Each volume of the Offeror’s proposal will first be reviewed to determine whether it follows the requirements of Section L and includes all required information. Omission of information may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from further consideration.

To determine best value, the FAA will t:

a) Evaluate the written and oral presentation Technical Volumes for each Offeror against the criteria stated in Sections M.

b) Evaluate the Cost/Price proposal of each Offeror against the criteria stated in Section M

c) Evaluate the Past Performance proposal of each Offeror against the criteria stated in

Section M.

d) Evaluate the Small Business Goals proposal of each Offeror on an acceptable / unacceptable basis against the criteria stated in Section M.

e) Perform a tradeoff analysis of any differentiating findings between the Technical, Past

Performance, and Cost/Price proposal evaluations (including Risks and Opportunities), to arrive at an informed, fair, and reasoned best value decision.

M.3.2 Basis for Exclusion from Award Consideration The Government reserves the right to eliminate Offerors’ proposals from consideration for award prior to a final award decision. An Offeror may be excluded from award consideration if it is deemed to have submitted a non-responsive or incomplete proposal.

Any Offeror with a rating of “unsatisfactory” on any factormay be excluded from further consideration. Once any unsatisfactory rating is determined, the FAA reserves the right to not review any additional material the Offeror provided and move directly to removing that Offeror from consideration for award.

Any Offeror with a rating of “no confidence”, as defined in Table 2, for the Past Performance volume may be excluded from further consideration. Once the rating of “no confidence” is determined the FAA reserves the right to eliminate the Offeror from any further consideration for award without reviewing any additional proposal material.

Any Offeror with a rating of “unacceptable”, as defined in Table 3, in the Small Business Plan volume may be excluded from further consideration.

An omission or a vague response to the requirements of this solicitation may be deemed an incomplete proposal, as it relates to the requirements of the solicitation and consequently may cause the Offeror to be deemed ineligible for award.

Failure by an Offeror to sufficiently identify and address risks may lead the FAA to conclude that the Offeror has an inadequate understanding of the requirements and it may be grounds for elimination from the competition.

Proposals with unbalanced prices may be rejected and may be grounds for elimination from the competition.

Unrealistically low or unreasonably high proposed prices or inconsistencies between the cost and non-cost volumes may be grounds for eliminating an Offeror from competition on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the complexity and risks of the contract requirements or has made an unrealistic or unreasonable proposal.

If at any point during the evaluation process the FAA concludes that an Offeror is not likely to receive award, the FAA may stop evaluating the Offeror and eliminate the Offeror from further consideration for award.

The Contracting Officer will notify in writing any Offeror eliminated from further consideration either at the time of elimination or at the time of award.

M.3.3 Assessment of Risk and Opportunities Risks and opportunities identified within any aspect an Offeror’s proposal will be analyzed as to their potential impacts. This includes risks resulting from inconsistencies and discrepancies among various aspects of an Offeror’s proposal and risks that pertain to unsubstantiated representations made in any aspect of an Offeror’s proposal. Failure to address any capability included in the RFS can be considered a weakness, a risk, or both. The FAA will not assign a separate adjectival risk rating overall or for any of the volumes. The FAA will include its assessment of risk and opportunity in the evaluation of the relevant portion of the proposal. Risks and opportunities identified within the Technical volumes will fold into the technical factor scores. Risks and opportunities identified within the past performance volume will fold into the past performance rating. Risks and opportunities identified within the Cost/Price proposal will be held separate, and considered within the trade-off analysis alongside the other elements.

Risks and risk mitigation strategies identified in an Offeror’s proposal will be considered when evaluating proposed approaches. A particular Offeror’s ability to demonstrate an understanding of the risks and opportunities, or not, may be noted among strengths or weaknesses. Risks and Opportunities are defined in Table 4.

M.3.4 Evaluation Factors and Order of Importance Each proposal volume will be evaluated in accordance with the factors and hierarchy identified below. The Offeror’s responses will be rated based on the evaluation criteria.

For the best value determination, Volume I (Technical) is more important than Volume III (Past Performance). The non-price volumes (I and III) collectively are more important than Volume II (Price). As the differences among Offerors in the non-price evaluation decrease, importance of the Volume II evaluation increases.

M.3.4.1 Volume I – Technical.

Factor 1: Team Capability and Business Model Factor 2: Acquisition Systems and Strategy Factor 3: Systems Integration Approach Factor 4: Oral Presentation Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2; Factor 2 is approximately as important as Factor 3;Factor 4 is the least important

M. 4 Reserved

M. 5 Volume I: Technical Evaluation Process The FAA will evaluate the degree to which each proposal is viable, substantiated, and realistic.

The FAA will:

a) Review, analyze, and consider all information received in each proposal, which will include the written proposal content, and any written communication items, if issued.

b) Identify any strengths, opportunities, weaknesses, and risks for each element within each factor in each proposal.

c) Rate each factor according to the rating levels defined in Table 1 by assessing the findings of each element within the factor using Table 1. The element findings will form the basis for the factor rating.

When determining a rating the FAA will review all strengths, opportunities, weaknesses, and risks to determine the ratings. Ratings will not be determined solely based on the quantity of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities or risks. The Technical Volume includes the material associated with the written Technical volume.

M.5.1 Part A: Technical Factors

M.5.1.1 Factor 1: Team Capability and Business Model The FAA will evaluate the following 8 (eight) elements:

Element 1.1: Program Management, Reporting, and Collaborative Tools

(a) The degree to which the Offeror will use transparent program management, reporting and collaborative tools that FAA can directly access.

Element 1.2: Communication Strategy

(a) The degree to which Offeror will communicate effectively with all stakeholders.

Element 1.3: Work Processes, Workflows, and Forums

(a) The degree to which the Offeror’s work processes enable efficient consideration of a wide array of stakeholder interests and integrate those pieces of information into a logical outcome.

Element 1.4: Strategy for Managing Resources

(a) The degree to which the Offeror manages required resources.

Element 1.5: Organizational Structure

(a) The degree to which the Offeror’s organizational structure, including all relevant teams, executives, and subcontractors, will interact with FAA counterparts and how the Offeror will ensure appropriate access to FAA counterparts and proper authorities to execute the mission with sufficient priority access to resources.

Element 1.6: Key Personnel

(a) The degree to which Offeror’s key personnel and proposed team have the appropriate experience to lead complex integration efforts. Minimum key personnel must include the positions as outlined in Section H.6. This includes Offeror’s key personnel and proposed team have the appropriate experience to lead complex integration efforts and clearly maps the Organization structure to the job descriptions of the key personnel explaining roles, functions, and duties.

(b) The degree to which the Offeror clearly maps the Organization structure to the job descriptions of the key personnel explaining roles, functions, and duties.

(c) The Offeror must provide letters of commitment from all Key Personnel that commit to being Key Personnel for one year or, if not selected as awardee, through award.

Element 1.7: Management of Subcontractors

(a) The degree to which the Offeror manages subcontractors in a manner that is timely and cost-effectively delivers the brand-new NAS.

(b) The degree to which the Offeror proposes allocation of award fee to the subcontractors and explanation of how that allocation aligns to the work the subcontractors perform.

(c) The degree to which the Offeror explains the approach to subcontracting and demonstrates successful management over all levels of subcontracts on the contract.

Element 1.8: Protection from Conflicts of Interests

(a) The degree to which the current and or proposed protections demonstrate a clear understanding of information control, the seriousness of separation of business units and the overall mitigation plan to eliminate conflicts of interest that the FAA determines cannot be mitigated.

M.5.1.2 Factor 2: Acquisition Systems and Strategy The FAA will evaluate the following 6 (six) elements:

Element 2.1: Experience and Knowledge in Major Acquisitions

(a) The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates knowledge and experience in the acquisition realm both as a provider and a customer, including highlighting lessons learned and translating those lessons into risks and opportunities for this integration effort.

Element 2.2: Approach to Acquisitions

(a) The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates an effective approach to acquisition methodologies, including recommendations of competition or non-competition.

Element 2.3: Approach to Preserving Future Choices for the FAA

(a) The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates an approach that commits to expanding the

FAA’s future choices, which may include avoiding vendor/ product lock.

Element 2.4: Cost Control

(a) The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a strategy for short-term and long-term FAA cost avoidance and balancing competing interests.

Element 2.5: Approach to Collaborating with the FAA to Establish Requirements, Schedules, Goals, and Priorities

(a) The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a realistic and practical way to integrate US Government involvement in sourcing and other key decisions that impact the NAS.

Element 2.6: Approach to Incentivizing Success from Subcontractors

(a) The degree to which the Offeror unambiguously defines and incentivizes success through its subcontract arrangements, including test and acceptance criteria.

M.5.1.3 Factor 3: Systems Integration Approach The FAA will evaluate the following six (6) elements:

Element 3.1: Start Up The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a plan to immediately start work after contract award – with a team that is fully staffed and ready to work, including names, expertise, and a signed letter of commitment from all prospective employees, and an immediate plan to integrate its own work force with the FAA’s and accelerate towards rapidly deploying capabilities.

Element 3.1: Integration Ability The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates the ability to integrate/ interoperate complex and diverse systems, technologies, software, facilities, and equipment into a cohesive, modernized, and secure operational environment.

Element 3.2: NAS Operational Oversight The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a viable plan for operating, monitoring, and maintaining the brand-new NAS.

Element 3.3: Transition Planning and Cutover Design The degree to which the Offeror outlines a transition plan from the current NAS to the Brand- New NAS to demonstrate understanding of the transition challenges with emphasis on technological innovation.

Element 3.4: Integrated Schedule The degree to which the Offeror proposes a schedule that is detailed, realistic, and achievable.

Element 3.5: Knowledge of Cutting-Edge Technology The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates knowledge and experience with technological advancements and how to evaluate software and other technology for quality, efficiency, and modernity

M.5.1.4 Factor 4: Oral Presentation The FAA reserves the right to invite select Offerors for oral presentations. The FAA will evaluate the offeror using a use case . The FAA may require key personnel attend the presentation and answer directed questions. Rules for the oral presentation will be provided to the offeror in advance of their scheduled presentation. The FAA is looking for the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates understanding of the use case and provides comprehensive and creative solutions.

M.5.2 Technical Evaluation Ratings

Table 1: Technical Rating Definitions Rating Definition

Excellent The combined impact of strengths and opportunities far outweighs the combined impact of weaknesses and risks.

Good The combined impact of strengths and opportunities outweighs the impact of any weaknesses and risks.

Satisfactory The combined impact of strengths and opportunities is approximately equal to the combined impact of weaknesses and risks.

Marginal The combined impact of the weaknesses and risks outweighs the combined impact of any strengths and opportunities.

Unsatisfactory The combined impact of the weaknesses and risks far outweighs the combined impact of strengths and opportunities.

M. 6 Volume II Cost/Price Evaluation Process The FAA will evaluate proposed pricing of all CLINs for reasonableness, and review proposed pricing for balance, completeness, consistency and traceability. 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

The FAA will verify that prices have been submitted for all requested Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs). The FAA will validate the Offeror’s Cost Model for each Offeror’s computation of costs for the prices entered within their submitted Cost Model. The Offeror’s Cost Model will be reviewed for completeness, effectiveness, and transparency for the fully functional Microsoft excel cost build up workbook for direct labor and all indirect costs.

M.6.1 Cost Model and TEP

The FAA will evaluate the Offeror’s price proposals using the Offeror’s provided Cost Model, Basis of Estimates (BOE) and additional supporting documentation submitted by the Offeror including but not limited to the Offeror’s labor categories descriptions, qualifications, and mapping against Offeror’s organization chart for the contract. 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), but excludes the CLIN 6 with Offeror proposed values. The evaluation of options does not obligate the FAA to exercise the option(s). Therefore, the TEP will be the sum of:

1. Proposed price for CLINs 1 through 5;

2. CLIN 6 with FAA provided Not-to-Exceed (Ceiling/Plug) amounts.

*Estimated hours for T&M do not represent a commitment by the FAA to purchase this amount of service (or mix of labor).

The result of the cost realism evaluation will be a determination of the Most Probable Cost (MPC) to the FAA. The FAA will evaluate the realism in accordance with AMS Policy Section

3.2.3 and AMS Procurement Guidance T3.2.3, using a Qualitative and Quantitative Team (Q&Q). The realism analysis will assess the compatibility of proposed cost and price with the proposed scope and effort and will determine whether the proposed costs 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 various elements of the Offeror's technical proposal. Realistic costs are verifiable, complete, accurate, and supported by an estimating methodology that is logical, appropriate, and adequately explained. This analysis will result in a Most Probable Cost (MPC) which will be used in the trade-off decision and may not be the same as the proposed cost.

The FAA reserves the right to perform price realism on the fully burdened labor rates in accordance with AMS T 3.2.3. If the FAA conducts price realism analysis, the Offeror’s proposed price and rates will not be adjusted as part of the Price Realism analysis. However, the results of the analysis will be used in assessing performance risk. The realism analysis will NOT be performed for any NTE amounts.

M.6.2 Employee Compensation vs. Overhead/General and Administrative (G&A) The FAA will analyze direct labor costs plus fringe benefits against overhead/G&A expenses.

The FAA will consider the overall compensation structures to ensure fair and reasonable pay, benefits, and corporate profits.

The FAA will analyze both the proposed G&A rates and the maximum ceiling G&A rates proposed by the Offeror. The FAA will look at the overhead rates and material/subcontractor handling rates. The FAA will validate that no additional fees are added to subcontractor rates or materials.

The FAA will analyze the percentage of cost that is the employees’ salary and benefits package compared to the rate build up and overhead charges. The overall employee compensation compared to the G&A proposed. In particular, the FAA deems better value as being the Offeror who has the highest percentage of compensation going to the actual professionals performing the work on a daily basis. Offerors who have relatively low percentages in this respect may be assigned a risk. Offerors who are efficient in this aspect may be assigned an opportunity.

Offerors who provide ambiguous data on this point, refuse to provide precise data on this point, or are incapable of providing precise data on this point, may be assigned a risk.

The result of this will not be used to adjust any proposed rates or cost. However, the results of the analysis will be used in assessing performance risk.

M.6.3 Invoices The FAA will analyze the degree of detail provided in the sample invoices for both the Offeror and Subcontractors. The FAA will review the clarity of charges and the breakdown of all fees and handling charges. The results of the analysis will be used in assessing performance risk.

M.6.4 Reserved

M.6.5 Reserved

M.6.6 Price Assumptions, Deviations, and Contingencies

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

M. 7 Volume III: Past Performance Evaluation Process Each Offeror’s past performance will be assessed using the Offeror-provided information and information received in the response to the Past Performance Survey (Attachment J.XX). The FAA will consider the areas identified in Section M. 6 and use the ratings as identified in Table 2, Past Performance Rating Descriptions, to rate the Past Performance volume.

The Government assessment may be augmented by information obtained through contact with prior clients of the offeror, including references other than those identified by the offeror, and the results used in the evaluation.

While the FAA may elect to consider information obtained from other sources, the FAA is under no obligation to do so. Past performance evaluations will be conducted on information determined to be relevant and recent. Past performance examples that do not meet recency and relevancy requirements may be considered but will not receive full credit. Based on the definitions within Table 4 the FAA will determine relevancy and recency of Offeror provided information as well as information obtained from other sources. An Offeror’s lack of past performance on similar types of contracts may result in an Offeror receiving a lower rating. The FAA is not bound by the Offeror’s view of relevancy or recency.

Offerors will be assessed to see whether they have a proven track record of quality work, timely performance, satisfied customers, effective program management, cost control, and efficient contract administration. This assessment will be based on the past performance information submitted in accordance with Section L.

The Government will review and assess the customer satisfaction questionnaires for consistency with information provided by the offeror and for independent assessment of the offeror’s past experience as related to the factors in section M.

In the absence of relevant past performance as defined above, the offeror’s past performance may be assessed based upon their three most recent past performance credentials closest to the BNATCS Program requirements as defined in this RFS. These examples may be submitted by the Offeror or identified by the FAA.

Past Performance will be rated by assessing strengths, weaknesses, and risks noted for each of the past performance examples and using the criteria stated in Table 2.

M.7.1 Past Performance Evaluation Criteria The following areas will be considered in the evaluation:

Quality of Product or Service: The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates its past performance in delivering quality products or services in the areas of compliance with contract requirements, accuracy of reports and overall technical excellence.

Timeliness of Performance: The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates its past performance for timeliness of performance in the areas of meeting event milestones, meeting delivery schedules, fulfilling contract requirements and meeting completion dates.

Cost Control: The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates its past performance for cost control in the areas of forecasting target costs, target costs relationships to actual costs, billing, and cost efficiency.

Customer Satisfaction: The FAA will review and assess the customer satisfaction questionnaires for consistency with information provided by the Offeror. The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates its past performance for customer satisfaction by assessing the overall satisfaction of end users with the contractor’s service.

An Offeror’s failure to provide sufficient detail on past performance with contracts of significant size, scope and requirements may result in an Offeror receiving a lower rating. In the event that the FAA does not receive three Past Performance Surveys from an Offeror, that may result in the Offeror receiving a lower rating. While the FAA reserves the right to augment with sources other than those identified by the offeror, the FAA is under no obligation to do so.

M.7.2 Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Table 2: Past Performance Rating Definitions

High Confidence The past performance response gives the FAA a high degree of confidence that the requirements will be met in timely and cost-effective manner. The combined impact of identified strengths and opportunities far outweighs the combined impact of weaknesses and risks.

Confidence The past performance response gives the FAA a degree of confidence that requirements can be met in a timely and cost-effective manner.

The combined impact of strengths and opportunities outweighs the combined impact of weaknesses and risks.

Low Confidence The past performance response gives the FAA low confidence that the requirements may be met in a timely and cost-effective manner. The combined impact of strengths and opportunities is equivalent to or somewhat less than the combined impact of weaknesses and risks

No Confidence The past performance either does not fully address the requirements orthe response fails to adequately identify the competency or capability to meet the requirements in a timely and cost-effective manner. The combined impact of weaknesses and risks far outweighs the impact of any strengths and opportunities.

M. 8 Small Business Goals and Utilization The FAA will evaluate the Small Business volume submitted by other than small businesses to assess the extent to which the Offeror meets or exceeds the subcontracting goals stated in Section L and AMS content requirements.

For Offerors which qualify as large business for the NAICS code associated with this RFS (541512), the Government will evaluate each Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan as either Acceptable or Unacceptable using Table 3.

The FAA will consider the methodology used to incorporate small business, percentages, performance incentives, evidence of corporate commitment, and the extent to which small businesses are included in areas of performance that are integral to the requirements of the Statement of Objective.

Table 3: Small Business Goal Rating Definitions

Acceptable Offeror proposed subcontracting goals meet or exceed RFS-established goals and the Small Business Subcontracting Plan is complete in all material aspects.

Unacceptable Offeror fails to propose / fails to meet RFS-established subcontracting goals, or the Small Business Subcontracting Plan is incomplete in one or more material aspects.

M. 9 Definitions

Table 4: Definition of Terms

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

Weakness An aspect of a proposal that would negatively impact performance of the resulting contract, or 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 to successfully perform the required effort or the proposed approach.

Opportunity An aspect of a proposal that presents a potential enhancement potential that improves the program's ability to meet its performance, schedule, cost, or other objectives. This is different from strength in that it may not occur.

Relevant Present/Past programs that involved essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexity that will be required to provide the services required for DNATCS and are currently ongoing or were recently completed.

Recent Performance within ten years of the date of proposal submission

M.5.1.4 Factor 4: Oral Presentation

M.5.2 Technical Evaluation Ratings