DCE SIR Section M.pdf

693KA7-AAQ210-DCE

Section M Page 1

PART IV - SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 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. The following clauses are incorporated by reference:

AMS

CLAUSE TITLE DATE

3.2.4-31 Evaluation of Options April 1996

M.2 AWARD SELECTION

The FAA intends to award one contract as a result of this SIR, however the FAA reserves the right not to make an award if such a decision is in its best interest.

M.3 BASIS FOR AWARD/SELECTION

Award, if any, will be made to the responsive, responsible Offeror whose evaluated proposal represents the lowest priced, technically acceptable (LPTA) offer that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation. The FAA reserves the right to waive any requirements, minor irregularities, or discrepancies if it would be in its best interest to do so. The Technical Acceptability Factor will be rated as “acceptable” or “unacceptable” as defined in Section M.10.2. Additionally, price will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness.

M.4 AWARD ON INITIAL OFFERS

The FAA reserves the right to award a contract immediately following the conclusion of any evaluation, and may not require discussions or negotiations with the successful Offeror or any other Offeror. Therefore, it is critical that each offer be fully responsive to this SIR and its provisions. Offerors should not assume that they will be afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss, or revise their responses if the FAA identifies deficiencies therein. All submittals in response to a SIR should contain the Offeror's best terms from a Technical, Past Performance, and Price standpoint.

M.5 COMPLIANCE REVIEW

The FAA will perform a compliance review of each volume of the Offeror proposals to determine whether it follows the instructions provided in Section L and includes the required information. To be considered acceptable and eligible for award, an Offeror must address https://fast.faa.gov/contractclauses.cfm

Section M Page 2 separately all the factors set forth in accordance with Section L of this SIR. 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.

M.6 ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARD

To be eligible for award, the Offeror must meet all requirements of the SIR. In addition, prior to award, the FAA will make a determination of responsibility based on the Offeror’s compliance with the responsibility requirements as addressed in Section L.16, Determination of Responsibility.

In the event the FAA determines that an Offeror does not meet the requirements for a determination of responsibility, the FAA will notify the Offeror and remove the Offeror from consideration for award.

M.6.1 Other Sources of Data

As specified in FAA AMS Guidance Section T.3.2.2.7.A.1.c (2), the CO may use the following 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.

M.6.2 Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business (SBSDB) Subcontracting Plan and Subcontracting Goals

An Offeror must be determined responsible by the Contracting Officer in order to receive contract award. To be determined responsible, the Offeror must satisfy the standards listed in AMS Section 3.2.2.2. The adequacy of the Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting Plan (SBSDB) are factors in the Contracting Officer’s determination of the prospective Contractor responsibility.

(a) Offerors are hereby notified that the adequacy of a SBSDB Subcontracting Plan is a factor in the Contracting Officer's determination of prospective Contractor responsibility. If the apparently successful Offeror fails to propose the required subcontracting goals, that Offeror shall be ineligible for award.

Section M Page 3

(b) This factor is not applicable to small businesses.

M.6.2.1 Subcontracting Plan Evaluation Criteria

The subcontracting plan will be rated by the Contracting Officer as either Acceptable or Unacceptable and will not be numerically scored. The evaluation factors will be assigned an adjectival rating as follows:

(a) ACCEPTABLE – Proposed goals meet or exceed SIR-established subcontracting goals.

(b) UNACCEPTABLE - Offeror fails to propose goals, or proposed goals do not meet SIR-established subcontracting goals.

M.7 NON-RESPONSIVE PROPOSALS

Proposals with a large number of deviations, omissions, or vague responses to the requirements of this SIR may be considered non-responsive and may be determined to be ineligible for award.

M.8 EVALUATION ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

Evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance and their applicable sub-factors are as follows:

a) Factor 1 - Price

b) Factor 2 - Technical Acceptability

a. Sub-factor A - Technical Approach

b. Sub-factor B - Past Performance

Technical Acceptability sub-factors are of equal importance. Failure in any sub-factor is an automatic failure of that Factor.

M.9 EVALUATION PROCESS

Proposals submitted in response to this SIR will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria listed below. The objective of the evaluation is to determine which proposal offers the lowest price for attainment of the objectives of the SIR, price and other factors considered. Those proposals found to be non-compliant and not reasonably subject to being made compliant, as referenced in M.7, will be eliminated from further consideration. During the evaluation process, the FAA evaluation teams will evaluate each Offeror’s proposal using information submitted by the Offeror, and in the case of Past Performance, obtained from outside references against evaluation factors contained in Section M.

The proposals will be evaluated by assigned teams that will evaluate each Offeror’s proposal against the evaluations factors and in accordance with the evaluation plan.

Section M Page 4

The evaluation teams will then compile the results from all evaluation factors and present their findings to the Source Selection Official (SSO), who will select that technically acceptable Offeror who offers to the Government the lowest reasonable price.

M.9.1 Factor 1 - Price

The FAA will evaluate offers to determine the lowest fair and reasonable total proposed price.

M.9.2 Factor 2 – Technical Acceptability

The FAA will evaluate each Offeror’s technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, as described in M.10.2. The definitions for acceptable and unacceptable are as follows:

Acceptable (Pass): The Offeror’s response adequately addresses each requirement in the Statement of Work (Sections 5.1-5.7) and demonstrates a thorough understanding of the full range of the requirements and work effort. The Offeror has demonstrated that its approach and solution, when implemented, would highly benefit the Government through effective and efficient performance under the contract. The Offeror has proven it has the ability to produce the required items in a timely manner in accordance with the proposed schedule.

Unacceptable (Fail): The Offeror’s response does not adequately addresses each requirement in the Statement of Work (Sections 5.1-5.7) and does not demonstrate a thorough understanding of the full range of the requirements and work effort. The Offeror’s response does not demonstrate that its approach and solution, when implemented, would highly benefit the Government through effective and efficient performance under the contract. The Offeror has not proven it has the ability to produce the required items in a timely manner in accordance with the proposed schedule.

M.9.2.1 Sub-factor A – Technical Approach

The FAA will assess on an acceptable or unacceptable basis whether or not the Offeror’s narrative demonstrates an understanding of each of the SOW requirements, as described in section M.10.2.1. Additionally, the FAA will assess on an acceptable or unacceptable basis whether or not the Offeror addressed methods for successfully accomplishing each of the SOW requirements as described in section M.10.2.1.

M.9.2.2 Sub-factor B – Past Performance

The FAA will assess no more than three (3) relevant past performance examples on an acceptable or unacceptable basis as described within each of the requirements outlined in Section M.10.2.2.

M.10 EVALUATION CRITERIA

The FAA will select an offer for award based on two evaluation factors; Price and Technical Acceptability. Offerors’ price proposals will first be evaluated to determine the lowest fair and

Section M Page 5 reasonable price. The FAA will then evaluate the lowest priced Offeror’s technical proposal.

Both sub-factors must receive an acceptable rating to be eligible for award. If the lowest priced offer is not technically acceptable, the FAA will evaluate the next lowest price offer. The Offeror’s proposal that has the lowest fair and reasonable proposed price that is also deemed technically acceptable will receive the award.

M.10.1 Factor 1: Price

The FAA will evaluate price proposals for reasonableness. A comparative analysis will be performed in order to determine the lowest fair and reasonable price. The FAA considers a price reasonable if, by its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which a prudent person would pay in the conduct of a competitive business. Optional CLIN pricing, as specified in B.3, will be evaluated as part of the total proposed price.

M.10.2 Factor 2: Technical Acceptability

The FAA will determine technical acceptability by evaluating an offer with respect to two sub-factors, Technical Approach and Past Performance. The FAA will evaluate an Offeror’s Technical Approach and Past Performance volumes separately and assign a rating of “acceptable” or “unacceptable” for each sub-factor. The FAA will determine an offer to be technically acceptable if the FAA assigns a rating of “acceptable” to both sub-factors. If the Offeror is unable to meet one or more of the listed criteria in either sub-factor, the proposal will be determined to be technically “unacceptable.” Sub-factor A and sub-factor B will be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.

M.10.2.1 Sub-Factor A: Technical Approach

The FAA will rate an Offeror’s Technical Approach “acceptable” if the FAA determines that the Offeror demonstrates an understanding of the SOW requirements. Specifically, the FAA will evaluate Offerors’ written responses to determine if the Offeror addressed methods for successfully accomplishing each of the five (5) requirements below. The Government will rate the Offerors’ responses as either acceptable (pass) or “unacceptable (fail).

(a) Metrics for assessing the on-time completion of project milestones and deliverables including:

identification and procurement of long lead time material/parts; estimated schedule for start and completion for first article units; and estimated schedule for start and completion of production of Installation Kits, Infrastructure Kits, Installation Wiring Kits, Infrastructure Wiring Kits, GFM delivery and inspection (5.1.c)

(b) Procuring the first article and production quantities of COTS, modified COTS, and custom parts listed in Attachment J-2, DCE Hardware Parts - Installation Parts, J-3, DCE Hardware Parts -Infrastructure Parts, and Attachment J-5, Wiring Kit Manufacturing Specification.

(5.2.1, 5.3.1, 5.4.1, 5.5.2, and 5.6.1)

(c) Fabricating the custom parts using Attachment J-4, Custom Parts Documentation (zip file) (5.3.1)

Section M Page 6

(d) Producing the production quantities, in kit form, as specified in Section F.3 of the SIR for the Installation Kits and Infrastructure Kits in accordance with the Government-approved Packaging and Labeling Instructions for Installation and Infrastructure Kits.

(e) A commercial location for performing kitting, inspection, and acceptance (C.5.6).

M.10.2.2 Sub-Factor B: Past Performance

The FAA will rate an Offeror’s Past Performance “acceptable” if:

(a) The Offeror has submitted at least one, and no more than three (3) past performance examples demonstrating at least three (3) years of combined relevant experience in kitting parts, developing or sourcing custom cables, and conducting test activities to validate that custom cables have met the specifications.

(b) The past performance examples must provide references who are able to validate that the Offeror’s relevant experience is similar in size, scope and complexity; and the offeror successfully met contract requirements and schedule.

(c) The past performance examples must be for contracts or subcontracts either currently ongoing or which were completed within the past ten (10) years from proposal due date.

(d) At least one of the Offeror’s three past performance examples demonstrates the Offeror’s relevant experience as the prime contractor.

At the Government’s discretion, the FAA may contact outside references for past performance. It is not the responsibility of the FAA to search for information to correct problems, errors, or omissions in the past performance examples submitted. In the event, the FAA is unable to contact one or more of the provided references, the FAA reserves the right to request additional references, from the Offeror, as needed. The burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information remains with the Offeror.