DNTS SIR Sect M.pdf

Dedicated Network Telecommunications System (DNTS) SIR # 693KA8-24-R-00007

Page M-1

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

TABLE OF CONTENTS

M.1 AMS 3.1-1 CLAUSES AND PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (July 2019) .. 3

M.2 GENERAL INFORMATION

M.2.1 Award on Initial Offers

M.2.2 Rejection of Non-Responsive and Unrealistic Proposals

M.3 EVALUATION PROCESS

M.3.1 Initial Screening and Compliance Review

M.3.2 Communications with Offerors

M.3.3 Exclusion from Competition

M.4 EVALUATION APPROACH

M.4.1 Basis for Award

M.4.2 Relative Importance of Volumes, Factors, and Sub-Factors

M.5 EVALUATION FACTORS

M.5.1 FACTOR 1 –Technical (Volume 1: Reference Section L.5.1)

DNTS PD Self Evaluation Form

M.5.1.1 Sub-factor 1.1 Analyses (Volume I, Part A: Reference Section L.5.1.1)

M.5.1.2 Sub-factor 1.2 Conduct of Operational Capabilities Test (OCT) (Volume I, Part B:

Reference Section L.5.1.2)

M.5.2 FACTOR 2 – Management (Volume II: Reference Section L.5.2)

M.5.2.1 Sub-factor 2.1 - Key Personnel (Volume II, Part A: Reference Section L.5.2.1)

M.5.2.2 Sub-factor 2 - Management Capability (Volume II, Part B: Reference Section L.5.2.2) . 9

M.5.3 FACTOR 3 Past Performance (Volume III: Reference Section L.5.3)

M.5.3.1 General Requirements for Past Performance References

M.5.3.2 Supplemental Past Performance Information

M.5.3.3 Assessment

M.5.3.4 Rating

M.5.4 FACTOR 4 – Price (Volume IV - Reference L.5.4)

M.5.5 Miscellaneous Documentation (Volume V - (Volume IV - Reference L.5.5)

M.6 DEFINITIONS FOR EVALUATION

M.7 SECTION M ATTACHMENTS

Page M-2

List of Tables

Table M-1: Rating Methodology and Order of Importance Table M-2: Definitions of Risk Ratings for Factors 1 and 2- Technical and Management Table M-3: Definitions of Strength and Weakness for Factors 1 and 2 – Technical and Management Table M-4: Definition of Adjectival Ratings for Factors 1 and 2 Table M-5: Definition of Past Performance Ratings for Factor 3 Table M-6: Definition of Impact Categories

Page M-3

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.

Clause Title Date

3.2.4-31 Evaluation of Options April 1996

M.2 GENERAL INFORMATION

The following general information provides notice to Offerors.

M.2.1 Award on Initial Offers

In accordance with the AMS, FAA reserves the right to award a contract based on initial offers received without communications or negotiations. For this reason, each initial offer should be submitted on the most favorable terms from the standpoint of meeting SIR requirements as well as price.

M.2.2 Rejection of Non-Responsive and Unrealistic Proposals

For purposes of this SIR, a “proposal” encompasses both the written and non-written (e.g., Operational Capabilities Test (OCT) equipment and materials, and OCT participation) components.

FAA reserves the right to reject proposals that are non-responsive to solicitation requirements or unrealistic in terms of promised outcomes or proposed price. Some representative examples, which are not intended to be all inclusive, are as follows:

• A proposal consisting of general statements that the Offeror understands the requirements of the work to be performed or a proposal that merely rephrases or restates Statement of

Work (SOW) requirements and/or Section M evaluation criteria is nonresponsive to solicitation requirements.

• A proposal where responses to solicitation requirements are vague or omitted.

M.3 EVALUATION PROCESS

M.3.1 Initial Screening and Compliance Review

To be eligible for award, proposals must be submitted in accordance with the instructions and terms of the solicitation. Submittals will be initially screened for completeness, accuracy and timeliness.

The term “completeness” corresponds to whether the Offeror’s proposal complies with the SIR requirements at a high level. The term “accuracy” is the extent to which the proposal adheres to specific requirements of the SIR, such as specific font size and page limits. The term

“timeliness” corresponds to whether the Offeror’s proposal and related deliveries were received

Page M-4 no later than the due date and time specified in Section L.3.1 and L.3.3. Offerors may be found ineligible for award if their proposals fail to conform to all terms and conditions of the SIR.

a) Omissions or vague responses to the requirements of this solicitation may cause a proposal to be determined incomplete and may cause Offerors to be determined ineligible for award.

Therefore, Offerors should provide comprehensive and adequate responses to all factors within the respective Volume proposals regardless of their order of importance. Offerors should be fully responsive to the SIR and ensure that the proposals they submit contain their best terms from the standpoint of the proposed technical solution, management approach, and price.

b) Additionally, the FAA will review the Offeror’s OCT submission using the methodology selected by the Offeror in its completed Attachment L-6 OCT Participation form, i.e., Government OCT Compliance Review or Offeror OCT Self-Certification. The Offeror’s description of its OCT Submission contents (Attachment L-6, Form 2) will be used as part of the Government’s initial screening, regardless of the methodology selected. Offerors who do not submit the full set of Operational Capabilities Test (OCT) equipment and materials by the proposal due date, or do not provide full OCT participation in accordance with SIR Attachment M-1 (OCT Plan), will be considered non-responsive and may not be further evaluated.

M.3.2 Communications with Offerors

During the evaluation process, FAA may conduct communications with any or all Offerors in accordance with FAA Acquisition Management Policy Section 3.2.2.3.1.2.2. The FAA reserves the right to award this contract without communications, in accordance with FAA Acquisition

Management Policy 3.2.2.3.1.2.3. The following conditions apply to Offeror communications:

a) Communications with one Offeror do not require communications with any other

Offeror.

b) The FAA communications may occur orally or in writing.

c) Offeror written responses to Clarification Requests (CRs) may be considered in the evaluation of an Offeror’s proposal and may serve as the basis for strengths and weaknesses. The FAA is not obligated to advise Offerors of weaknesses assessed in their proposals.

d) Any information provided in response to FAA-issued communications may be used in the evaluation of proposals.

e) The FAA reserves the right to conduct communications, discussions, and negotiations with any Offeror as it pertains to their offers. One-on-one communications may continue throughout the source selection process at the FAA’s discretion.

Page M-5

M.3.3 Exclusion from Competition

If at any time during the evaluation process the FAA concludes that an Offeror is not likely to receive award, the FAA may eliminate the Offeror from further consideration for award. Failing to comprehend technical complexity or meet the requirements of the SIR may result in a determination that the proposal is ineligible for any further evaluation and contract award.

Within 15 calendar days after an Offeror’s elimination, the FAA CO will notify the eliminated

Offeror of their elimination and the basis for that elimination.

M.4 EVALUATION APPROACH

M.4.1 Basis for Award

FAA will utilize a best-value, tradeoff approach for selecting an Offeror in accordance with the

FAA Acquisition Management System (AMS). The best-value, tradeoff approach examines the non-price and price factors specified below to determine which Offeror’s proposal represents the best value to the Government. This approach does not require FAA to award to the Offeror submitting the highest rated technical proposal or to the Offeror submitting the lowest prices, although the ultimate award decision may be to either one of these Offerors.

FAA's best value, tradeoff analysis includes each Offeror's Risk Rating for Factor 1 Technical and Factor 2 Management. Each Offeror's Risk Ratings will be considered as an input to the

Factor 1 and 2 Adjectival ratings.

M.4.2 Relative Importance of Volumes, Factors, and Sub-Factors

Technical, Management, and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

Factor 1, Technical (Volume I), is the most important factor. It is more important than all other evaluation Factors combined. Within Factor 1, Sub-Factors 1.1 and 1.2 are equally important.

Factor 2, Management (Volume II), is less important than Factor 1, but more important than

Factors 3 and 4. Within Factor 2, Sub-factors 2.1 and 2.2 are equally important.

Factor 3, Past Performance (Volume III), is less important than Factors 1 and 2, but more important than Factor 4.

Factor 4, Price (Volume IV), is significantly less important than all other factors. The FAA will not record or assign ratings to the Offeror’s Price Proposals.

The FAA will not separately rate but will assess the information provided in Volume V -

Miscellaneous Documentation to ensure compliance with SIR requirements.

Table M-1 below provides a summary of the Rating Methodology and Factor/Sub-Factor Order of Importance.

Page M-6

Table M-1: Rating Methodology and Order of Importance

FACTOR RATING METHODOLOGY IMPORTANCE

Factor 1 (Technical

Proposal)

Adjectival (Table M-4), based on the sub-factor-level findings, their order of importance, and Factor 1

Risk Rating

Most important factor.

More important than all other factors combined.

Factor 1, Sub-factor 1.1

Analyses1

Assessed strengths and weaknesses, as defined in Table

M-3

Equal in importance to

Sub-factor 1.2

Factor 1, Sub-factor 1.2

Conduct of OCT

Assessed strengths and weaknesses, as defined in Table

M-3

Equal in importance to

Sub-factor 1.1

Factor 1 Risk Rating Risk Assessment as defined in

M.5.1 and Table M-2

N/A

Factor 2 (Management

Proposal)

Adjectival (Table M-4), based on sub-factor level findings and

Factor 2 Risk Rating

Less important than

Factor 1.

Factor 2, Subfactor 2.1

Key Personnel

Assessed strengths and weaknesses as defined in Table

M-3.

Equal in importance to

Sub-factor 2.2

Factor 2, Sub-Factor 2.2

Management Capability

Assessed strengths and weaknesses as defined in Table

M-3.

Equal in importance to

Sub-factor 2.1

Factor 2 Risk Rating Risk Assessment as defined in

M.5.2 and Table M-2

N/A

Factor 3 (Past Performance

Proposal)

Acceptable or Unacceptable as defined in Table M-5.

Less important than

Factors 1 and 2.

Factor 4 (Price Proposal) N/A Price is significantly less important than all other

Factors.

M.5 EVALUATION FACTORS

M.5.1 FACTOR 1 –Technical (Volume 1: Reference Section L.5.1)

FAA will base its evaluation of Factor 1 on its findings from the OCT Test Cases conducted in accordance with Attachment M-1, Appendix B, OCT Test Case Descriptions. For each of the

Sub-Factors listed below, FAA will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s Technical Solution meets the DNTS requirements as specified in the DNTS Product Specification, FAA-P-2978.

For purposes of this evaluation factor, an Offeror’s solution is considered to meet a requirement if it is assessed as meeting the criteria evaluated during the test.

1 SIR Attachment M-2, VRTM for Evaluation, provides a listing of DNTS technical requirements and how they are evaluated.

Page M-7

Based on the evaluation findings, evaluators will identify strengths and weaknesses to both of the

Factor 1 sub-factors as defined in Table M-3. In determining the impact of strengths and weaknesses, evaluators will consider the requirement’s impact categorization as specified in

Attachment M-2 VRTM for Evaluation, defined in Table M-6. An overall Risk Rating will be assigned to Factor 1 using the definitions in Table M-2.

The Factor 1-level Adjectival Rating (as defined in Table M-4) will be assigned based on the combined impact of the assessed strengths and weaknesses (as defined in Table M-3), the sub-factor order of importance, and the overall Factor 1 Risk Rating.

DNTS PD Self Evaluation Form

Part C of Volume I, Offeror’s completed DNTS Self-Evaluation Form (Attachment L-4) will not be scored or rated;

In the event an Offeror’s technical solution is determined to not meet a requirement, but the Offeror’s self-assessment shows the requirement as being met, the FAA may issue a

Clarification Request (CR) regarding the discrepancy.

M.5.1.1 Sub-factor 1.1 Analyses (Volume I, Part A: Reference Section L.5.1.1)

Sub-Factor 1.1 encompasses the DNTS requirements evaluated by “Analysis” (abbreviated as

“A”) as specified in SIR Attachment M-2 VRTM for Evaluation.

The FAA will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s submitted Analyses (i.e. white papers or data analysis reports) provide acceptable supporting technical data to substantiate the DNTS requirements as specified in the DNTS Product Specification, FAA-P-2978.

Based on the evaluation findings, evaluators will identify strengths and weaknesses as defined in

Table M-3. In determining the impact of strengths and weaknesses, evaluators will consider the requirement’s impact categorization as specified in Attachment M-2 VRTM for Evaluation, defined in Table M-6. Identified strengths and weaknesses will be used as inputs to the overall

Factor 1-level Adjectival Rating.

M.5.1.2 Sub-factor 1.2 Conduct of Operational Capabilities Test (OCT) (Volume I, Part

B: Reference Section L.5.1.2)

Sub-Factor 1.2 encompasses the DNTS requirements evaluated by “Demonstration”, “Inspection”, and “Test” (abbreviated as “D”, “I”, and “T”) as specified in SIR Attachment M-2

VRTM for Evaluation.

The FAA will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s OCT conduct demonstrates the

Offeror’s technical solution meets the DNTS requirements as specified in the DNTS Product

Specification, FAA-P-2978.

Based on the evaluation findings, evaluators will identify strengths and weaknesses as defined in

Table M-3. In determining the impact of strengths and weaknesses, evaluators will consider the requirement’s impact categorization as specified in Attachment M-2 VRTM for Evaluation, Page M-8 defined in Table M-6. Identified strengths and weaknesses will be used as inputs to the overall

Factor 1-level Adjectival Rating.

M.5.2 FACTOR 2 – Management (Volume II: Reference Section L.5.2)

FAA will evaluate each Offeror’s submitted Volume II (Factor 2 - Management) proposal using the evaluation criteria described in the two subsections below. Within Factor 2, both sub-factors are of equal importance. Evaluators will identify strengths and weaknesses as defined in Table

M-3 for both Factor 2 sub-factors. An overall Risk Rating will be assigned to Factor 2 using the definitions in Table M-2.

The Factor 2-level Adjectival Rating (as defined in Table M-4) will be assigned based on the combined impact of the assessed strengths and weaknesses (as defined in Table M-3), the sub-factor order of importance, and the overall Factor 2 Risk Rating.

M.5.2.1 Sub-factor 2.1 - Key Personnel (Volume II, Part A: Reference Section L.5.2.1)

The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed key personnel have the expertise and experience necessary to perform in their assigned role (Section H.2 and Section

C.3). For each key personnel resume submitted, evaluators will identify strengths and weaknesses relative to the minimum qualifications required in Attachment J-3, Labor Categories for each position.

Key Personnel Description

(Section H.2, AMS Clause 3.8.2-17)

SOW

Reference

Minimum

Qualifications

(J-3 Labor Categories)

DNTS Program Manager – Has overall responsibility for all work efforts performed under the DNTS contract. Leads

DNTS Program Management Reviews and serves as the

Contractor’s primary focal point to the Government’s DNTS

Program Office and DNTS Contracting Officer.

C.3.1.1 Program Manager

DNTS Configuration Manager – Serves as the Contractor’s technical lead for the DNTS equipment/software and all configuration management and architectural issues. Engages in the resolution of technical and operational issues as needed. Attends all configuration audits and serves as the

Contractor’s primary representative on all configuration data and issues.

C.3.2.1 Senior Engineer or

Senior Software Engineer

DNTS Logistics Manager – Has overall responsibility for logistics planning, management, and information under the

DNTS contract. Supports the resolution of operational issues as needed. Serves as the Contractor’s representative on all logistics management data and issues.

C.3.3.1 Senior Logistician

DNTS Test Manager - Has overall responsibility for planning, coordinating, supervising, and reporting of all test activities required in the contract. Serves as the Government’s point of

C.3.4.1 Engineer or

Page M-9

Key Personnel Description

(Section H.2, AMS Clause 3.8.2-17)

SOW

Reference

Minimum

Qualifications

(J-3 Labor Categories) contact for all testing activities and ensures all tests are performed in accordance with the Contractor Master Test

Plan and Contractor Verification Requirements Traceability

Matrix. Must attend all Program Management Reviews and testing events including every day of the Factory Acceptance

Test.

Software Engineer

DNTS Training Lead – Has overall responsibility for the development and delivery of DNTS training. Serves as the

DNTS Contractor representative on all training issues and tasks. Attends the Contractor-hosted Training Guidance

Conference to ensure contractors’ understanding of the training requirements and all other training related events, including the Course-walkthrough, Operational Tryout, and

First Course Conduct.

C.3.3.11.1 Training Specialist

M.5.2.2 Sub-factor 2 - Management Capability (Volume II, Part B: Reference Section

L.5.2.2)

FAA will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates it has: a) an understanding of the services required, and b) the capability to perform satisfactorily.

For purposes of this criterion, the FAA will evaluate the Offeror’s narrative for the following

DNTS Contractor requirements:

As to Program and Risk Management, the FAA will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s response demonstrates:

• The Offeror’s approach to monitoring and reporting of performance status and risks, includes the performance of their subcontractors (if applicable) and major suppliers

• The Offeror’s approach to monitoring and reporting of required corrective measures is likely to reduce DNTS technical risk

• The Offeror’s approach to monitoring and communicating DNTS problem areas is likely to reduce DNTS schedule risk

• The Offeror’s approach to monitoring and communicating Diminishing Manufacturing

Sources and Material Shortages is likely to reduce DNTS sustainability risk

As to Production/Delivery Capabilities, the FAA will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s response demonstrates:

• The Offeror has strategies in place to mitigate industry production risks including: 1) component scarcity, 2) catastrophic events, and 3) qualified skill labor shortages.

Page M-10

As to Quality Control, the FAA will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s response demonstrates:

• The Offeror has quality control processes and capabilities to ensure high-quality, well-verified products.

As to Resource Management, the FAA will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s response demonstrates:

• The Offeror has the capability to quickly and efficiently provide the required qualified personnel to successfully fulfill Technical Support Services tasks to be ordered by Task

Order (C.3.5.2)

As to Configuration Management, the FAA will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s response demonstrates:

• The Offeror’s proposed tools and processes will effectively manage the product baseline

(C.3.2.6) and provide configuration control that to enable traceability, currency, and consistency among all project hardware, software, and documentation (C.3.2.7).

• The Offeror has the necessary visibility and control of the proposed DNTS configuration to ensure only Government-approved changes to the product baseline will be required for the entire contract term (C.3.2.2).

• The Offeror has an understanding of how Contractor-initiated Class I changes (3.2.7) after DNTS Product Baseline establishment, would likely negatively impact the DNTS program, mission, and contract.

As to Integrated Logistics Support, the FAA will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s responses demonstrate:

• The Offeror’s proposed processes and procedures will ensure all DNTS Logistics

Management Information (LMI) data products are complete and accurately align to the current DNTS physical breakdown structure (C.3.3.5),

• The Offeror’s proposed processes, techniques, and expertise will produce a high-quality, well-designed Technical Instruction Book (C.3.3.9), to provide FAA field technicians with sufficient knowledge to perform system maintenance tasks and operational functions.

• The Offeror’s proposed processes, techniques, and expertise will produce a high-quality, well-designed Training Courses (C.3.3.11) to provide FAA field technicians with sufficient knowledge to perform system maintenance tasks and operational functions.

• The Offeror’s proposed repair processes, tracking systems, and communication procedures will ensure quality and timely repair of DNTS equipment (C.3.3.8 and H.3).

Page M-11

• The Offeror’s proposed repair tracking system would provide Government visibility and traceability of units repaired under warranty, and non-warrantied repairs.

As to Testing, the FAA will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s responses demonstrate:

• An understanding of the importance, purpose and interdependencies of testing deliverables as set forth in Section C.3.4,

• The Offeror’s proposed approach to developing testing deliverables is feasible and represents an integrated DNTS test program to support the Government’s target milestone timeframes in F.4.1,

• The Offeror’s proposed approach includes test tools, processes, and risk mitigation strategies to ensure the successful and on-time completion of Factory Acceptance

Testing,

• The Offeror’s proposed approach to production acceptance testing (C.3.4.5) and production unit testing (C.3.4.6) to meet DNTS test requirements and ensure DNTS products are successfully verified prior to delivery,

• The Offeror’s proposed Problem Trouble Report (PTR) database and processes will accurately and efficiently document, track, prioritize, and report PTRs during FAT, PAT, and PUT events, and

• The Offeror’s proposed PTR processes and reporting will ensure timely or expedited resolution of PTRs during FAT, PAT, and PUT test events.

M.5.3 FACTOR 3 Past Performance (Volume III: Reference Section L.5.3)

M.5.3.1 General Requirements for Past Performance References

The FAA will evaluate the acceptability of Part A of Offeror’s Proposal Volume III to determine if the past performance cited is recent and relevant:

A. Contract performance is recent if it is ongoing or was completed not more than five (5) years from proposal submission due date; and

B. Contract performance at the prime or subcontractor level is relevant to the DNTS contract requirements if meeting any of the following criteria:

Dollar Value: For the purposes of the Past Performance evaluation, a contract or subcontract is relevant if the total average annual value of the work that the

Offeror performed exceeds $9M USD;

Scope: For the purposes of the Past Performance evaluation, a contract is relevant if it includes tasks and activities using similar program and project management processes, manufacturing processes, logistics processes, essential skills and unique technologies to those in the SOW; and

Page M-12

Complexity: For the purposes of the Past Performance evaluation, a contract is relevant if the Offeror has performed/is performing delivery and repair (warrantied or non-warrantied) of telecommunications system equipment. Adhere to contract schedules, including schedules for administrative aspects of performance (i.e., submission of invoices, reports, certifications). Provide periodic status updates and provide an overall commitment to quality and customer satisfaction; Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror may be determined to have unknown past performance and given a Past

Performance rating of ‘Acceptable’.

M.5.3.2 Supplemental Past Performance Information

a. The FAA reserves the right to collect Supplemental Past Performance Information in addition to the customer responses to the Past Performance Questionnaires to resolve conflicting information, obtain additional detail relevant to information provided in the surveys, or provide further insight into the Offeror’s history of performance. To obtain additional information, the FAA may:

• Contact customer points of contact provided in Volume II directly to obtain additional past performance information;

• Use information from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System

(CPARS);

• Confer with FAA personnel who have first-hand knowledge of an Offeror’s performance on other FAA contracts; and

• Refer to other sources as determined appropriate by the FAA.

b. Collectively, any additional information obtained from these sources is referred to as

“Supplemental Past Performance Information.” Supplemental Past Performance

Information may be considered in the evaluation of an Offeror’s Past Performance only if it meets the criteria set forth in Section M.5.3.1. The FAA may collect Supplemental Past

Performance Information about none, one, some, or all Offerors. Obtaining Supplemental

Past Performance Information about one Offeror does not obligate the FAA to collect it about other Offerors.

c. The FAA will document all information relied upon in evaluating an Offeror’s history of

Past Performance in the Past Performance Evaluation Report, including Supplemental

Past Performance Information (as applicable). Any Past Performance Questionnaires completed by the Government will be identified as such in the Past Performance

Evaluation Report and will be considered when determining the Past Performance rating.

Page M-13

M.5.3.3 Assessment

If a contract is recent and relevant, as defined at M.5.3.1, to the DNTS requirements, the FAA will assess the Past Performance Survey associated with that contract to determine whether the

Offeror has:

• Performed the work according to requirements;

• Adhered to contract schedules, including repair and delivery schedules, and schedules for administrative aspects of performance (i.e., submission of invoices, reports, certifications);

• Managed costs and delivered outputs within budget;

• Cooperated and communicated with its customers including trouble ticket status and other problem resolution; and

• Demonstrated an overall commitment to quality and customer satisfaction.

M.5.3.4 Rating

The FAA will assess each requirement listed in Section M.5.3.1 (above) and then assign an overall rating of” Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” based on whether the Offeror’s Past

Performance submissions demonstrate a satisfactory performance history of recent and relevant work. The rating definitions for “Acceptable” and “Unacceptable” Past Performance are found in

Section M.6, Table M-5. The FAA may eliminate any Offeror that receives a rating of

“Unacceptable” on Factor 3 - Past Performance from further consideration for award.

M.5.4 FACTOR 4 – Price (Volume IV - Reference L.5.4)

The FAA will evaluate each Offeror’s price proposal in accordance with AMS Policy 3.2.3 and AMS

Procurement Guidance T3.2.3. The FAA will not record or assign ratings to the Offeror’s Price Proposals.

The FAA will evaluate Volume IV price proposals for reasonableness, and review for completeness, traceability and consistency. In evaluating offers, the FAA will use the Offeror’s calculated Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Additionally, the FAA reserves the right to evaluate the

Offeror’s proposal for balance and the FAA reserves the right to perform price realism. Offeror’s proposed indirect rates entered into the “General” tab in the Section B Price Model is not used in calculating the TEP; however; the rate, if accepted, will be incorporated into Section B at contract award as the agreed upon indirect rate.

The Offeror’s TEP, which includes the base period, all option periods, and will be equal to the sum of the extended prices for all CLINs for all years as well as the Government specified Not-to-Exceed (NTE) amounts in the Offeror’s Completed Section B-Pricing Model. The evaluation of options does not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

The FAA will evaluate proposals for reasonableness in accordance with AMS Acquisition

Management Policy Section 3.2.3 and AMS 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.

Page M-14

The FAA reserves the right to evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for balance. Unbalanced pricing exists where, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more item (e.g., CLINs, ordering years) is significantly understated or the price of one or more CLIN 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 realism analysis in accordance with AMS

Procurement Guidance T3.2.3. This may require the FAA to request additional information from the Offerors.

The FAA will review each price proposal to determine whether the proposal includes all required pricing information, pricing details align with summary pricing tables, and prices are consistent with described pricing methodology. Completeness, traceability and consistency will be determined based on the information requested in Section L.5.4 and its subsections (i.e., Offeror’s fully populated Section B Price Model, Offeror’s Price Narrative for each Section B

CLIN, and Offeror’s Basis of Estimate calculations). The FAA at its sole discretion might require additional information or reject proposals lacking completeness, consistency, or traceability.

M.5.5 Miscellaneous Documentation (Volume V - (Volume IV - Reference L.5.5)

The FAA will review Volume V for completion and compliance with the instructions in SIR

Section L.

If the Offeror identifies any OCIs in Part G of Volume V, the FAA will assess the proposed mitigation plan to ensure that it complies with the AMS clauses 3.1.7-1 Exclusion from Future

Agency Contracts (July 2018), 3.1.7-2 Organizational Conflicts of Interest (July 2018), 3.1.7-4

Organizational Conflicts of Interest –Mitigation Plan Required (July 2018), and 3.1.7-5

Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest (July 2018). FAA will not award a contract to an Offeror with an unmitigated conflict of interest.

Page M-15

M.6 DEFINITIONS FOR EVALUATION

Definitions for evaluation are provided in the following tables below.

Table M-2: Definitions of Risk Ratings for Factors 1 and 2- Technical and Management

RISK

RATING

DEFINITIONS

Low

The proposed DNTS solution may contain one or more weaknesses;

however, those weaknesses have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

The proposed DNTS solution contains weaknesses or combination of weaknesses, which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

The proposed DNTS solution contains weaknesses or combination of weaknesses, which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close

Government monitoring.

Table M-3: Definitions of Strength and Weakness for Factors 1 and 2 – Technical and Management

Strength

An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that provides a positive impact to the government that would facilitate the successful contract performance, or which exceeds the minimum SIR requirements.

Weakness

An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that fails to address or satisfy a SIR requirement or has a negative impact on the probability of successful contract performance.

Page M-16

Table M-4: Definition of Adjectival Ratings for Factors 1 and 2

ADJECTIVAL

RATING

DEFINITIONS

Excellent

Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding. The identified strength(s) far outweigh any identified weakness(es) or the absence of any weakness(es). Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. The identified strength(s) outweigh any weakness(es). Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Satisfactory

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a satisfactory approach and understanding of the requirements. No strength(s) or weakness(es) were identified; or the identified strength(s) are of approximate equal weight to any identified weakness(es). Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated a satisfactory approach and understanding of the requirements. The identified weakness(es) outweigh any identified strength(s). Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unsatisfactory Proposal does not meet requirements. The identified weakness(es) far outweigh any identified strength(s) or the absence of any strength(s). Risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptably high.

Table M-5: Definition of Past Performance Ratings for Factor 3

Rating Definition

Acceptable

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unacceptable

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Page M-17

Table M-6: Definition of Impact Categories

Impact

Category Definition

Critical

DNTS requirements that are intrinsic to successful deployment of the DNTS mission and where failure to meet any one of these requirements would render the

Offeror’s technical solution un-deployable in the National Airspace System (NAS).

Major

DNTS requirements that are considered necessary to the successful deployment of

DNTS and where failure to meet these requirements would denote a high-impact disruption to NAS operations.

Minor

DNTS requirements that are considered standard technical requirements for industry telecommunication systems and where failure to meet these requirements would denote a low to moderate disruption to NAS operations.

M.7 SECTION M ATTACHMENTS

M-1 – Operational Capability Test (OCT) Plan

M-2 – VRTM for Evaluation