Draft DNTS Sect M_2023-04-28.pdf

Dedicated Network Telecommunications System (DNTS) DRAFT SIR # 693KA8-23-R-000xx

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 2011) .. 3

M.2 GENERAL INFORMATION

M.2.1 Award on Initial Offers

M.2.2 Rejection of Non-Responsive and Unrealistic Proposals

M.2.3 Right not to Award

M.2.4 Evaluation of Risk

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 and Factors

M.5 EVALUATION FACTORS

M.5.1 FACTOR 1 –Technical (Volume 1)

Sub-Factor Order of Importance for Factor 1 (Technical)

DNTS PD Self Evaluation Form

M.5.1.1 Sub-factor 1.1 Critical Capabilities

M.5.1.2 Sub-factor 1.2 Vital Capabilities

M.5.1.3 Sub-factor 1.3 Standard Capabilities

M.5.2 FACTOR 2 - Management

M.5.2.1 Element 1 - Key Personnel

M.5.2.2 Element 2 - Management Capability

M.5.3 FACTOR 3 Past Performance (Volume 3)

M.5.3.1 General Requirements for Relevant Past Performance Surveys

M.5.3.2 Rating

M.5.4 FACTOR 4 – Price (Volume IV)

Page M-2

M.5.5 Miscellaneous Documentation (Volume V)

M.6 DEFINITIONS FOR EVALUATION

M.7 SECTION M ATTACHMENTS

List of Tables Table M-1: Definitions of Risk Ratings for Factor 1 - Technical Table M-2: Definitions of Strength and Weakness for Factor 1 - Technical ............ Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table M-3: Definitions of Strength and Weakness for Factor 2 - Management Table M-4: Definition of Adjectival Ratings for Factors 1 and 2

Page M-3

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

(JULY 2011)

This screening information request (SIR) 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 FAA Contracting Officer (CO) 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 technical and 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 examples of non-responsive or unrealistic proposals include the following:

• 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 the requirements is nonresponsive to solicitation requirements.

• A proposal that contains a large number of exceptions or deviations to the solicitation or DNTS technical requirements (FAA-P-2978), or a proposal that contains one or more significant exceptions or deviations to the solicitation or DNTS technical requirements is considered non-responsive. An exception or deviation is significant if it materially alters the terms under which the Offeror would perform, what the Offeror is required to submit, or requires FAA to give up rights to which it would otherwise be entitled.

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

• A proposal that proposes unrealistic prices, as defined in section M.5.

M.2.3 Right not to Award

The FAA reserves the right to make no award in response to the solicitation if FAA determines that this action is in its best interest.

https://fast.faa.gov/contractclauses.cfm

Page M-4

M.2.4 Evaluation of Overall Risk (Technical and Management)

Risk will be assessed in Factor 1 (Technical) and Factor 2 (Management) regarding the Offeror’s proposed technical solution and any potential impact to the DNTS program. A combined (Factor 1 and 2) overall Risk Rating, as defined in Section M.6, Table M-1, will be assigned to each Offeror’s proposed technical solution for Factor 1. Some examples where risk may be assessed include:

i. The extent and impact of unmet technical requirements, as defined by “shall” requirements in the DNTS Product Description FAA-P-2978 (attachment J1);

ii. The impact of an Offeror’s proposed workaround or remediation;

iii. Inconsistencies and discrepancies between various aspects of the technical proposal,

iv. Unsubstantiated representations made by any offeror, inclusive of “Analyses” documentation (Data Analysis Reports or a White Papers) that do not adequately or objectively verify test results;

M.3 EVALUATION PROCESS

M.3.1 Initial Screening and Compliance Review

Upon receipt, FAA will screen proposals to ensure that they are complete and comply with all terms of the solicitation. Proposals that are incomplete (e.g., missing volume parts, do not complete all required cells in the price template) or do not comply with the terms of the solicitation (e.g., exceed applicable page limits or include price information in the technical volume) will not be evaluated.

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 IAW SIR Attachment M-1 (OCT Plan), will be considered non-responsive and will not be further evaluated.

M.3.2 Communications with Offerors

During the evaluation process, FAA may conduct written or oral communications with any or all Offerors. The FAA reserves the right to conduct communications with any individual Offeror or with some, all, or no Offerors. Communications may include a request to submit revised proposal volumes. Communications, including negotiations, with one or more Offerors do not require communications with any other Offerors.

Page M-5

M.3.3 Exclusion from Competition

During the evaluation process, the FAA may limit continued participation in the competition to those Offerors most likely to receive award. If at any time during the evaluation process FAA concludes that an Offeror is not likely to receive award, the FAA may eliminate the Offeror from further consideration for award. Any Offeror eliminated from further consideration will be notified in writing.

M.4 EVALUATION APPROACH

M.4.1 Basis for Award

FAA will utilize a best-value, tradeoff approach for selecting an Offeror IAW 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, as a whole, 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.

M.4.2 Relative Importance of Volumes and Factors

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

Factor 1 Technical, is othe most important factor. It is more important than all other evaluation Factors combined.

Factor 2 – Management is less important than Factor 1, but more important than Factors 3 and 4.

Factor 3 – Past Performance is less important than Factors 1 and 2, but more important than Factor 4. The FAA will separately review and rate each Offeror’s Volume III (Factor 3 - Past Performance) as “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. FThe FAA will not award a contract to an Offeror with an unacceptable history of past performance.

Factor 4 – Price 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.

Order of Importance

Factor

1 Factor 1 Technical

2 Factor 2 Management

Page M-6

3 Factor 3 Past performance

4 Factor 4 Price.

Page M-7

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. 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. Evaluators will identify strengths and weaknesses relative to the sub-factors using the definitions listed in Table M-2.

Based upon the strengths, weaknesses and risks identified, evaluators will assign adjectival ratings to the associated sub-factors. The range of adjectival ratings and their definitions are listed in Table M-4. An overall adjectival factor-level rating will be assigned to Factor 1 based on the sub-factor-level ratings and their order of importance. An overall Risk Rating will be assigned to Factor 1 in accordance with M.2.4 and the definitions in Table M-1.

Sub-Factor Order of Importance for Factor 1 (Technical)

Within Factor 1, Sub-factor 1.1 Critical Capabilities is the most important Technical sub-factor. The FAA will not award a contract to an Offeror whose technical solution does not satisfy all Sub-factor 1.1 criteria. Sub-Factor 1.1 is of greater importance than, Sub-factor 1.2 Vital Capabilities, which is considered more important than Sub-factor 1.3 Standard Capabilities.

Attachment M-2, VRTM for Evaluation, provides a listing of all DNTS technical requirements and their assignment to each sub-factor and OCT Test Case.

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; however, any Offeror proposed remediation or workaround will be assessed as to its potential impact to the DNTS program and included in the FAA’s Factor 1 Risk evaluation per M.2.4.

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 request Offeror clarification.

M.5.1.1 Sub-factor 1.1 Critical Capabilities

Sub-factor 1.1 is comprised of DNTS requirements that are intrinsic to satisfying the overall 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). Any workaround or remedial solutions to meeting Sub-factor 1.1 requirements are likely unavailable or not viable.

Page M-8

The FAA will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s technical solution meets the DNTS Sub-factor 1.1 requirements listed in SIR Attachment M-2. If the Offeror’s technical solution includes a proposed workaround or future remediation of any of the Sub-factor 1.1 requirements, the FAA will evaluate the extent to which the proposed workaround or remediation would add risk or complexity to the DNTS program.

The FAA will not award a contract to an Offeror whose technical solution does not satisfy all Sub-factor 1.1 criteria.

M.5.1.2 Sub-factor 1.2 Vital Capabilities

Sub-factor 1.2 is comprised of DNTS requirements that are considered vital to the successful deployment of DNTS. Workaround or remedial solutions to meeting Sub-factor 1.2 requirements may exist; however, not without adding technical, cost, or schedule risk to the Program.

The FAA will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s technical solution meets the DNTS Sub-factor 1.2 requirements listed in SIR Attachment M-2. If the Offeror’s technical solution includes a proposed workaround or future remediation of any of the Sub-factor 1.2 requirements, the FAA will evaluate the extent to which the proposed workaround or remediation would add risk or complexity to the DNTS program.

M.5.1.3 Sub-factor 1.3 Standard Capabilities

Sub-factor 1.3 is comprised of DNTS requirements that are considered standard technical requirements for industry telecommunication systems or where a proposed workaround or remediation would likely not add substantial risk to the Program.

The FAA will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s technical solution meets the DNTS Sub-factor 1.3 requirements listed in SIR Attachment M-2, VRTM for Evaluation. If the Offeror’s technical solution includes a proposed workaround or future remediation of any of the Sub-factor

1.3 requirements, the FAA will evaluate the extent to which the proposed workaround or remediation would add risk or complexity to the DNTS program.

M.5.2 FACTOR 2 - Management

FAA will evaluate each Offeror’s submitted Volume II (Factor 2 - Management) proposal using the evaluation criteria described in the two subsections below. Factor 2 elements will be scored together, where evaluators will identify strengths and weaknesses as defined in Table M-3 in both Factor 2 elements. Based upon the identified strengths and weaknesses, evaluators will assign an overall Adjectival Rating for Factor 2 using the definitions in Table M-4.

M.5.2.1 Sub-factor 1 - Key Personnel

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

Page M-9 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 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.

C.3.4.1 Engineer or

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

Page M-10

M.5.2.2 Sub-factor 2 - Management Capability

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.

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:

Page M-11

• 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), and

• 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 that will ensure quality and timely repair of DNTS equipment (C.3.3.8 and H.3).

• 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:

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

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

Page M-12

M.5.3 FACTOR 3 Past Performance (Volume 3)

M.5.3.1 General Requirements for Past Performance Surveys

The FAA will evaluate the acceptability of the Past Performance Surveys (PPS) 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. Demonstrates the Offeror has performed work that is “relevant”, i.e. is of similar size, scope, magnitude, and complexity to the DNTS contract. For the purposes of this criterion, work is considered 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 or the total value of the contract (inclusive of options) exceeds $20M USD; and

° Required the Contractor provide delivery and repair (warrantied or non-warrantied) of telecommunications system equipment; and

° Required the Contractor adhere to contract schedules, including schedules for administrative aspects of performance (i.e. submission of invoices, reports, certifications); and

° Required the Contractor provide periodic status updates to its customers; and

° Required the Contractor provide an overall commitment to quality and customer satisfaction

M.5.3.1.1 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.7.6.4. The FAA may collect Supplemental Past Performance Information about none, one, some, or all Offerors. Obtaining Supplemental

Page M-13

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.

M.5.3.2 Rating

The FAA will assess each requirement listed in Section M.6.3.1 (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.

M.5.4 FACTOR 4 – Price (Volume IV)

The FAA will evaluate each Offeror’s price proposal in accordance with AMS Policy 3.2.3 and AMS Procurement Guidance T3.2.3 and as set forth in Section M.7.7. 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 and/or cost 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 FAA will calculate 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.

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

Page M-14 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. The FAA reserves the right to conduct cost realism analysis in accordance with AMS Procurement Guidance T3.2.3 if necessary to ensure a fair and reasonable price and to support the price realism analysis. 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)

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

M.6 DEFINITIONS FOR EVALUATION

Definitions for evaluation are provided in the following tables below.

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

RISK

RATING DEFINITIONS

Low

The proposed DNTS technical 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 technical 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 technical 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.

Page M-15

Table M-2: 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.

Risk

An aspect an Offeror's proposal that presents an uncertainty as to the ability of the Offeror successfully to perform the required effort or the proposed approach. An aspect (e.g. cost, price, technical, performance or schedule) that would be possible if the Offeror is selected.

Page M-16

Table M-3: Definition of Adjectival Ratings for Factors 1 and 2

ADJECTIVAL

RATING DEFINITIONS

Excellent

The Offeror’s proposed solution or proposal is comprehensive and demonstrates an in-depth, exceptional approach and understanding that exceed requirements. 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

The Offeror’s proposed solution or 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

The Offeror’s proposed solution or 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 The Offeror’s proposed solution or 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 The Offeror’s proposed solution or 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.

Rating Definition

Acceptable

The Offeror’s record of past performance indicates there is very little risk associated with receiving quality products, timely services and full contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Offeror’s experience indicate the Offeror will meet or exceed the requirements of the contract.

The Contractor has demonstrated recent experience with projects of similar size, scope and complexity.

Unacceptable

The Offer’s record of past performance indicates that there is some potential risk associated with receiving quality products, timely services, and contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Offeror’s experience indicate the Offeror may have some problems during performance of the delivery order. The Contractor has demonstrated limited recent experience with projects of similar size, scope and complexity.

M.7 SECTION M ATTACHMENTS

M-1 – Operational Capability Test (OCT) Plan

M-2 – VRTM for Evaluation

M.5.3.2 Rating