CTS II - Section M Draft_070325.pdf

693KA8-25-R-00013

PART IV – REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1

Table of Contents

FAA AMS CLAUSES AND PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

GENERAL INFORMATION

BASIS FOR AWARD

EVALUATION PROCESS

OVERVIEW

COMPLIANCE REVIEW

ELIMINATING PROPOSALS

RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATION

EVALUATION ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

VOLUME II – PROGRAM MANAGEMENT APPROACH EVALUATION

FACTOR 1: MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE DELIVERY

M.5.1.1. Sub-factor 1.1: Program Management Organization M.5.1.2. Sub-factor 1.2: Program Management Execution M.5.1.3. Sub-factor 1.3: Task Order Management M.5.1.4. Sub-factor 1.4: Key Personnel

FACTOR 2: SAMPLE PROBLEM RESPONSE

M.5.2.1. Sub-factor 2.1: Sample Problem 1 M.5.2.2. Sub-factor 2.2: Sample Problem 2

FACTOR 3: TRANSITION APPROACH

VOLUME III – TECHNICAL APPROACH EVALUATION

FACTOR 1: INSTRUCTIONAL CAPABILITIES

FACTOR 2: APPROACH AND ABILITY TO PROVIDE OTHER REQUIRED SERVICES

FACTOR 3: KNOWLEDGE/UNDERSTANDING OF THE FAA AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL (ATC)

OPERATING ENVIRONMENT

FACTOR 4: KNOWLEDGE OF AND FAMILIARITY WITH FAA ATC TRAINING PROCESS AND

MATERIALS

VOLUME IV – PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

VOLUME V – COST/PRICE EVALUATION

VOLUME VI – SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN EVALUATION

DEFINITIONS OF ADJECTIVAL RATINGS

M-2

FAA AMS Clauses and Provisions Incorporated by Reference

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.

(End of clause)

Clause Number

Clause Title

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

General Information

This section of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Controller Training Solutions II (CTS II) SIR describes the factors used to evaluate offers submitted in response to this solicitation.

Basis for Award

This acquisition uses a “Best Value” approach under the FAA Acquisition Management System (AMS) policy T3.2.2.3.

While the Government will use objectivity to the maximum extent possible, the source selection process is, by nature, subjective, and professional judgment will be applied throughout the process.

The Government anticipates awarding one contract resulting from this solicitation. Should it decide to do so, the Government reserves the right to make multiple awards or not to make an award resulting from this solicitation.

Evaluation Process

Overview

The Government will evaluate Offeror responses to the SIR following the evaluation criteria for award described herein. Proposals that fail to meet the requirements of the solicitation or are unrealistic in terms of technical content or schedule commitments may be deemed ineligible for further evaluation and contract award. The Government also reserves the right to (i) reject any

M-3 offers, (ii) waive any requirement, and (iii) accept minor irregularities and discrepancies if doing so is determined to be in the best interest of the FAA.

The Government may conduct written or oral communications with any or all Offerors to evaluate the proposals. The Government reserves the right to communicate with any individual Offeror or all competing Offerors. Communications with one or more Offerors do not require communications with other Offerors. The Government reserves the right to reject any exception taken to a term or condition of this SIR and to reject any proposal that includes such an exception.

While the Government reserves the right to conduct communications, the Government intends to evaluate each proposal without communications unless clarification is requested, and award a contract to the responsible Offeror whose offer represents the best value to the Government as defined in Section M. Therefore, Offerors are cautioned that their initial proposals should contain the Offeror’s best terms.

Compliance Review

Each volume of the Offeror’s proposal will first be reviewed by the Contracting Officer (CO) to determine whether it satisfies the requirements of Section L and includes all the required information. Proposals that omit necessary information, do not fully conform to Section L requirements, or attempt to deviate from any requirement may be deemed ineligible for award.

Eliminating Proposals

If at any time during the evaluation process the Government concludes that an Offeror is not likely to receive an award, the Government may eliminate the Offeror from further consideration for the award. In writing, the Contracting Officer will notify any Offeror eliminated from further consideration.

Responsibility Determination

To be eligible for the award, the prospective Contractor must be determined by the CO to be responsible per AMS 3.2.2.7, Contractor Qualifications.

To assist in this determination, the Government will review information provided in the submission of the Offeror’s Volume I, Offer and Other Documents. The Government also reserves the right to conduct a pre-award survey of any Offeror or Offeror’s subcontractor(s) if deemed necessary by the CO. If a pre-award survey is undertaken, it does not necessarily mean an Offeror has been selected for award.

Evaluation Order of Importance of Factors and Subfactors

M.4.5.1 Volume Order of Importance

M-4

Volume II (Program Management Approach) is more important than Volume III (Technical Approach).

Volume III is more important than Volume IV (Past Performance).

Volume V (Cost/Price) will become more important as the difference between Offerors in the Volume II (Program Management Approach), Volume III (Technical Approach), and Volume IV (Past Performance) evaluation results decreases.

Volume I (Offer and Other Documents) is not weighted against other volumes. Volume VI (Small Business Subcontracting Plan) evaluation results are used to establish the Offeror’s commitment to the participation of Small Businesses in the CTS II contract and are not weighted.

The Government reserves the right to find an Offeror ineligible for award if an unacceptable Small Business Subcontracting Plan is submitted.

M.4.5.2 Factor Order of Importance

Volume II, Factor 1 (Management of Service Delivery) is more important than Factor 2 (Sample Problem Response). Factor 2 important than Factor 3 (Transition Approach).

Volume III, Factor 1 (Instructional Capabilities) is more important than Factor 2 (Approach and Ability to Provide Other Required Services). Factors 3 (Knowledge/Understanding of the FAA Air Traffic Control (ATC) Operating Environment) and 4 (Knowledge of and Familiarity with FAA ATC Training Process and Materials) are of equal importance and are less important than Factors 1 and 2.

M.4.5.3 Subfactor Order of Importance

Sub-factors within Volume II (Program Management Approach) and Volume III (Technical Approach are equally important.

M.4.5.4 Government’s Best Value Trade-Off

For the Government’s Best Value trade-off, the combination of the Volume II (Program Management), Volume III (Technical Approach), and Volume IV (Past Performance) evaluation results are more important than the Volume V Cost/Price evaluation results. As the difference between Offerors in the Technical Approach, Program Management Approach, and Past Performance evaluation results decreases, the Cost/Price evaluation results will become more important.

Volume II – Program Management Approach Evaluation

Volume II will be evaluated using the factors and sub-factors listed below. Evaluators will identify strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks relative to the evaluation factors and sub-factors. The definitions of strength, weakness, deficiency, and risk are listed in Table M-1.

M-5

Based upon the evaluation, evaluators will assign adjectival ratings to the associated factor or sub-factor. The range of adjectival ratings and their definitions are listed in Table M-2. For Factors 1 and 2, the factor-level adjectival ratings will be based upon the adjectival ratings of the underlying sub-factors. For Factor 3 (which has no sub-factors), the adjectival rating will be based upon the factor-level evaluation. Based on the factor-level ratings, an overall adjectival volume-level rating will be assigned to Volume II.

Factor 1: Management of Service Delivery

Factor 1 is comprised of the following sub-factors. All sub-factors are considered to be of equal importance.

M.5.1.1. Sub-factor 1.1: Program Management Organization

The Government will evaluate:

• The extent to which the Offeror’s proposed Program Management Organization (PMO) approach, processes, and tools facilitate effective management of all work efforts under the CTS II contract. The degree to which the roles and responsibilities of the members of the proposed PMO are well defined and facilitate the effective management of all contract work efforts. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed organization and program management approach fosters open communication with Government-designated points-of-contact.

• The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a sound and practical approach to recruiting and retaining sufficient personnel in all labor categories, outlined in Section J-2, necessary to support the requirements outlined in the SOW at the FAA Academy and FAA Field Facilities listed in Attachment J-1.

• The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates the experience and capability to recruit and hire a specialized staff of comparable magnitude to CTS II staffing requirements, in a short time.

• The degree to which the Offeror proposes comprehensive business processes that are well-aligned with the FAA’s business processes for: (1) the ordering of training/training support as defined in Section G.6, and (2) task order and contract line-item number (CLIN)-based billing as defined in Section G.7.

M.5.1.2. Sub-factor 1.2: Program Management Execution

The Government will evaluate:

• The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a sound and practical approach to Resource Management that ensures that qualified personnel are available to support FAA training as needed at the FAA Academy and FAA Field Facilities. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed approach to Resource Management ensures the required number of qualified personnel will be available to support FAA training at the FAA Academy (per the sample Academy schedule, Attachment L-2) and FAA Field Facilities during times of fluctuation in requirements.

M-6

• The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates the experience and capability to providing and managing support of comparable magnitude as needed to meet CTS II requirements (measured in terms of the total number of hours of support services the Offeror has provided across 12 months during the last seven (7) years, and the geographic range of support services provided (e.g., number of different states, regions, or countries).

• The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a sound and practical approach to contract site supervision, supported by their proposed ratios of employees to supervisors and a description of how contract staff will be managed at the FAA Academy and FAA Field Facilities.

• The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a sound and practical approach to managing subcontractors that will ensure that: (1) subcontractor personnel are in place as needed; (2) subcontractor personnel are integrated into the Contractor team; and (3) subcontractor personnel perform effectively and efficiently and meet the prime Contractor’s quality standards.

• The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a sound and practical approach to managing and mitigating risk throughout the contract’s lifecycle.

M.5.1.3. Sub-factor 1.3: Task Order Management

The Government will evaluate:

• The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a sound and practical approach to planning, executing, monitoring/supervising staff performance, and controlling all task order-based work efforts at all FAA locations identified in Attachment J-1.

• The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a sound and practical approach to scheduling and managing the resources required to meet task order requirements. The degree to which the Offeror reflects the ability to (1) support varying durations of training and other support service delivery; and (2) effectively respond to changes to the FAA’s training schedule.

• The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a sound and practical approach to performance management of task order-based efforts and ensuring that CTS II program objectives are met. The degree to which the Offerors proposed metrics and performance efforts will provide accurate and timely information for identifying deficiencies or negative trends in contractor performance.

• The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a sound and practical approach to measuring the quality of service delivery following Section H.20. The Offeror reflects a sound and pragmatic approach to mitigating and controlling issues impacting the quality of deliverables developed and delivered under this contract.

M.5.1.4. Sub-factor 1.4: Key Personnel

The Government will evaluate:

• The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed Key Personnel are suitably qualified to execute the responsibilities of their positions effectively.

M-7

Factor 2: Sample Problem Response

Factor 2 is comprised of the following sub-factors. All sub-factors are considered to be of equal importance.

M.5.2.1. Sub-factor 2.1: Sample Problem 1

The Government will evaluate:

• The degree to which the Offeror’s response to Sample Problem 1.1, including (1) the Offeror’s understanding of the dynamic hiring challenges presented at the FAA Academy,

(2) the Offeror’s approach to hiring, recruiting, and retaining staff at the FAA Academy, (3) the Offeror’s approach to delivering all of the Academy training requirements as ordered by the FAA, (4) the Offeror’s approach to mitigation strategies without sacrificing the quality of instruction, (5) the Offeror’s approach to mitigating and/or limiting double shifts and (6) the Offeror’s identified risks and mitigation plans, demonstrates a sound and realistic approach to managing the dynamic staffing challenges presented at the FAA Academy.

• The degree to which the Offeror’s response to Sample Problem 1.2, including the decomposition of the problem and the approach to addressing all of the questions presented in the scenario, demonstrates a sound and realistic approach to meeting the requirements at the FAA Academy.

M.5.2.2. Sub-factor 2.2: Sample Problem 2

The Government will evaluate:

• The degree to which the Offeror’s response to Sample Problem 2, including the decomposition of the problem and the approach to addressing all the questions presented in the problem, demonstrates a sound and realistic approach to meeting FAA requirements at historically difficult-to-staff FAA field facilities.

Factor 3: Transition Approach

The Government will evaluate:

• The degree to which the Offeror proposes a detailed and realistic schedule of activities and milestones that must be completed before they can begin providing training support services under the CTS II contract, resulting in only a single day cutover of training services from the CTC contract within 3 months of contract award. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed transition schedule identifies a detailed and realistic ramp-up of staffing levels needed to deliver training support services to all locations listed in Attachment J-1.

• The degree to which the Offeror’s transition narrative demonstrates the Offeror’s: (1) readiness to provide the required services after contract award following their proposed transition schedule; and (2) an orderly single day cutover of training support services from

M-8 the current contract to the CTS II contract with no interruption or degradation of service that could result in a disruption to FAA operations.

• The degree to which the Offeror has identified significant cost, schedule, and performance risk associated with their transition approach and the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates feasible and realistic high-level mitigation strategies for each risk.

Volume III – Technical Approach Evaluation

Volume III will be evaluated using the factors listed below. Evaluators will identify strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks relative to the evaluation factors. The definitions of strength, weakness, deficiency, and risk are listed in Table M-1.

Based upon the evaluation, evaluators will assign adjectival ratings to the associated factor. The range of adjectival ratings and their definitions are listed in Table M-2. Based on the factor-level ratings, an overall adjectival volume-level rating will be assigned to Volume III.

Factor 1: Instructional Capabilities

The Government will evaluate:

• The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a sound and comprehensive approach to providing the full scope of work efforts required under SOW paragraph 4.4 (Training Support Services). The extent to which the Offeror’s proposed approach to delivering training accounts for differences in the operating environments at the FAA Academy and FAA Field Facilities, as identified in Attachment J-1, and is structured to meet training requirements in these operating environments effectively.

• The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates an understanding of the qualification requirements for the LCATs listed in Attachment J-2 at FAA Field Facilities and the FAA Academy, and how they apply to delivering Air Traffic Control (ATC) training.

• The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a practical approach to ensuring its proposed instructor workforce maintains the required qualifications and certifications and familiarity with the FAA ATC operating environment.

• The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a sound and comprehensive approach to managing the quality of instruction delivered and quality metrics to effectively measure the quality of instruction at the FAA Academy and the full range of FAA Facilities listed in Attachment J-1. The degree to which any proposed quality metrics demonstrate a practical approach to measuring the quality of instruction delivered at the FAA Academy and the full range of FAA Facilities listed in Attachment J-1.

Factor 2: Approach and Ability to Provide Other Required Services

The Government will evaluate:

M-9

• The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a sound and comprehensive approach to supporting development, maintenance, and revision of FAA training materials for the FAA Academy, the FAA National Curriculum, and Local and Regional Curricula at FAA Field Facilities.

• The degree to which the Offeror proposes a sound and comprehensive approach to supporting: (1) the development of training strategies and processes, (2) improving training delivery, (3) conducting studies in areas relating to or affecting Air Traffic training, and (4) the management of the FAA’s Air Traffic Training program at the FAA Headquarters level and the FAA Academy.

• The degree to which the Offeror proposes a sound and comprehensive approach to identifying, evaluating, developing, and/or implementing innovations and enhancements to Air Traffic Controller Training based on new or updated methods, technologies, systems, tools, and/or curricula.

Factor 3: Knowledge/Understanding of the FAA Air Traffic Control (ATC) Operating Environment

The Government will evaluate:

• The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates the capability and experience in providing support services for an operational environment of comparable complexity and operational criticality/safety as is required under CTS II.

• The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the FAA ATC operating environment across the full range of facilities identified in Attachment J-1.

• The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the differences between the ATC operating environment at the FAA Academy and FAA Field Facilities (Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCC), Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) facilities, Air Traffic Control Towers (ATCT) and Air Traffic Control System Command Center (ATCSCC) and how those differences influence the training required for controllers working in those environments.

M-10

Factor 4: Knowledge of and Familiarity with the ATC Training Process and Materials

The Government will evaluate:

• The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates knowledge of and familiarity with the ATC training process, including training methods, facilities, tools, course materials, and other resources used in controller training.

• The extent to which the Offeror has the capability and experience to provide on-site classroom and simulation/laboratory training of FAA air traffic controllers across all ATC training environments listed in Attachment J-1, Site List.

• The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates an understanding of the roles and responsibilities of contract personnel in supporting FAA controller training at the full range of facilities listed in Attachment J-1.

• The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates an understanding of the goals of the FAA Air Traffic Controller Workforce Plan and the requirements of FAA Order 3120.4, Air Traffic Technical Training, in fulfilling the requirements of the SOW.

Volume IV – Past Performance Evaluation

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Past Performance Summaries and Past Performance Questionnaire responses and/or copies of CPARS. It will assign a confidence rating for each Offeror per the definitions provided in Table M-3. Based on past performance, the confidence rating assesses the likelihood of the Offeror’s successful performance under the CTS II contract.

The evaluation schema is under construction and an updated draft will be posted when available

Volume V – Cost/Price Evaluation

The FAA will evaluate Volume V for reasonableness per AMS Policy 3.2.3. A cost/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.

The FAA will review Volume V to determine whether it includes all required pricing information, whether prices are consistent with the described pricing methodology, and whether they are traceable to the requirements set forth in Section C. Completeness will be determined based on the information requested in Section L. At its sole discretion, the FAA may require additional information or reject proposals lacking completeness, consistency, or traceability.

The FAA will review the Sample Problem (Attachment L-1) responses for traceability to the prices proposed in the Cost proposal, as appropriate.

The FAA reserves the right to evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for balance. Unbalanced pricing exists where, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more labor

M-11 categories is significantly understated and the price of one or more labor categories is significantly overstated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques; or the offer is so grossly unbalanced that its acceptance would be equivalent to allowing an advanced payment (front loaded). 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.

The FAA reserves the right to perform price reasonableness and realism per AMS T3.2.3 and to conduct cost analysis on labor rates, fees, indirect costs, and other direct costs if deemed necessary to support the price analysis. This may require the FAA to request additional information from the Offerors.

Risk is inherent in any procurement. Although it will not be assessed, risks will be identified throughout the price evaluation. The price report will include all identified risks and may be used in the best value tradeoff.

M.8.1 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

In evaluating offers for source selection, the FAA will calculate the TEP, which includes base and all option periods. The TEP will equal the sum of the unit price for each CLIN multiplied by the Government-specified work efforts for all years, including options.

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

The Best Value trade-off analysis will consider the Government’s Cost/Price evaluation results and the TEP. There is no volume-level rating of the Cost/Price Volume.

Volume VI – Small Business Subcontracting Plan Evaluation

The Government will evaluate Volume VI based on the process outlined below. Based on this evaluation, the Government will assign a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” per the definitions in Table M-4. Submitting a Small Business Subcontracting Plan does not apply to small businesses; therefore, any prime Offerors who are small or small disadvantaged businesses will receive an Acceptable rating for this factor.

The FAA will evaluate whether the Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan fully complies with FAA AMS clause 3.6.1-4, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, and the goals outlined in Section L.

The FAA will further evaluate whether the Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan demonstrates that the subcontracting goals apply over the whole life of the contract, including the base period and each exercised option period.

Definitions of Adjectival Ratings

The following definitions listed in Tables M-1 and M-2 will be used when evaluating the Program Management and Technical Approach Volumes.

M-12

Table M-1. Definitions of Strength, Weakness, Deficiency, and Risk

Strength

Any part of a proposal that represents an additional benefit to the FAA, is in excess of the requirements, or would increase the efficiency or quality of performance under the contract.

Weakness Any part of a proposal that has a negative effect or impact on FAA operations, resources, program execution, or schedule. In general, any impediment to the successful execution of the program.

Deficiency A material failure of a proposal to meet the FAA’s requirement or a combination of weaknesses that increase the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

Risk An aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that introduces uncertainty in the ability of the Offeror to successfully perform the required effort.

Table M-2. Adjectival Ratings for Program Management and Technical Approach Volume

Evaluations

Rating Description

Excellent Proposal contains numerous strengths. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses, indicating the proposed effort will significantly benefit the Government. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Proposal contains numerous strengths that outweigh any weaknesses.

Weaknesses can easily be corrected, indicating the proposed effort will benefit the Government Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Satisfactory Proposal contains few strengths that offset weaknesses, indicating the proposed effort will meet the Government's requirements. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal contains weaknesses that outweigh any strengths. Proposed effort will minimally meet the Government's requirements. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unsatisfactory Proposal contains deficiencies. Proposal fails to meet the Government’s requirements.

M-13

The following adjectival ratings listed in Table M-3 will be used when evaluating the Past Performance Volume.

Table M-3. Adjectival Ratings for Past Performance Volume Evaluation

Rating Definition

High Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s past performance record, the Government has high confidence that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required efforts.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s past performance record, the Government has satisfactory confidence that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required efforts

Low Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s past performance record, the Government has low confidence that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required efforts.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

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

Table M-4. Adjectival Ratings for Small Business Subcontracting Plan Evaluation

Rating Definition

Acceptable The Offeror’s response demonstrates a viable small business subcontracting plan that meets the specified subcontracting goals and the AMS content requirements.

Unacceptable The Offeror’s response does not demonstrate a viable small business subcontracting plan and/or it does not meet the specified subcontracting goals or the AMS content requirements.

M.5.3. Factor 3: Transition Approach