DRAFT SIR CSS-FD Sect M.pdf

SECTION M Solicitation #

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD CSS-FD

M - i

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 AMS 3.1-1 CLAUSE AND PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (JULY 2019)

M.2 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR AWARD

M.2.1 DETERMINATION OF OFFEROR RESPONSIBILITY

M.3 BASIS FOR AWARD

M.4 EVALUATION ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

M.5 COMMUNICATION WITH OFFERORS

M.6 EVALUATION APPROACH

M.6.1 TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

M.6.2 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

M.6.3 PRICE EVALUATION

M.6.4 SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN EVALUATION

M.7 EVALUATION CRITERIA

M.7.1 VOLUME I – TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT FACTOR

M.7.1.1 Factor 1 – Technical Approach

M.7.1.1.1 Sub-factor 1 – Technical Solution M.7.1.1.2 Sub-factor 2 – Solution Development

M.7.1.2 Factor 2 – In-Service Support M.7.1.3 Factor 3 – Management Approach

M.7.2 VOLUME II – PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

M.7.2.1 Past Performance Evaluation M.7.2.2 Supplemental Past Performance Information M.7.2.3 Past Performance Experience Area Ratings M.7.2.4 Past Performance Rating

M.7.3 VOLUME III – PRICE FACTOR

M.7.3.1 Total Evaluated Price M.7.3.2 Cost/Price Proposal Risk M.7.3.3 Other Price Factors

M.7.4 VOLUME IV – SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN FACTOR

M - 1

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 AMS 3.1-1 CLAUSE 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 (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.

M.2 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR AWARD

Each Offeror’s proposal will be reviewed to determine whether the Offeror meets the Offeror Responsibility requirements in Section M.2.1 below. Omission of information or failure to fully conform to Section L requirements may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from award consideration.

M.2.1 DETERMINATION OF OFFEROR RESPONSIBILITY

To be eligible for award, the prospective contractor must be determined to be responsible in accordance with Acquisition Management Policy 3.2.2.2, i.e.:

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

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

• Has a satisfactory performance history;

• Has a satisfactory record of integrity and proper business ethics;

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

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

To assist in this determination, the Government 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 conducted, it does not necessarily mean that an offeror has been selected for award.

Clause Number Clause Title 3.2.2.3-34 Evaluating Offers for Multiple Awards (July 2004)

3.2.4-31 Evaluation of Options (April 1996)

3.3.1-30 Progress Payments Not Included (November 1997)

3.6.1-10 Evaluation of Contractor Participation in the FAA Mentor Protégé Program (January 1999) https://fast.faa.gov/contractclauses.cfm

M - 2

To be eligible for award, proposals must be submitted in accordance with Section L, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors, and must conform to all the terms and conditions of the SIR. Submittals must be complete, accurate, and contain the offeror’s best cost/price and technical terms. Offerors may be found ineligible for award if their proposals fail to conform to all terms and conditions of the SIR. However, the Government reserves the right to: (i) reject any and all offers; (ii) waive any requirements; and (iii) accept minor irregularities and discrepancies if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to do so.

Proposals that fail to meet the requirements of the SIR or are unrealistic in terms of technical content or schedule commitments may result in the offeror being assessed as lacking technical competence or failing to comprehend the technical complexity and risks of the contract requirements. Therefore, the Government reserves the right to determine such proposals to be ineligible for further evaluation and for contract award.

Offerors are cautioned not to minimize the importance of an adequate response in any area because of importance or visibility. Offerors must furnish specific information in their response in accordance with Section L. If at any time during the evaluation process the Government concludes that an offeror is not likely to receive award, the Government may eliminate the offeror from further consideration for award. Any offeror eliminated from further consideration will be notified in writing by the CO.

The CO will assess each offeror’s identification of potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCIs) and the associated OCI Mitigation Plan as acceptable or unacceptable. The Government reserves the right not to award a contract to any offeror determined to have an unacceptable OCI Mitigation Plan or determined to not have adequately identified potential OCIs.

M.3 BASIS FOR AWARD

A “Best Value” approach will be used as the basis for selecting an offeror for award. Best Value describes the solution that is the most advantageous to the Government based on the evaluation factors and their order of importance. This approach provides the opportunity for a trade-off of the evaluation results for non-price factors (Technical/Management and Past Performance) and the Price evaluation results in accordance with the Section M evaluation criteria. The Offeror that receives the highest Technical/Management Factor rating or the Offeror with the lowest Total Evaluated Price may not be determined to have submitted the Best Value offer. The Government Source Evaluation Team, Source Evaluation Board (SEB), and the Source Selection Official (SSO) will strive for maximum objectivity; however, the source selection process is, by nature, subjective and judgment will be applied throughout the entire process.

The Government intends to award one contract but reserves the right to award multiple contracts or no contract as a result of this SIR. Only Offerors meeting the eligibility criteria defined in Section M.2 will be considered in the Best Value assessment.

M.4 EVALUATION ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

Table M-1 below provides an overview of the evaluation order of importance of each proposal Volume, Factor, and Sub-Factor. The Technical/Management Volume is more important than

M - 3 the Past Performance Volume which is more important than the Price Volume. As the difference between Offerors in the Technical/Management and Past Performance evaluation results decreases, the Price evaluation results will become more important in the Best Value trade-off.

The Small Business Subcontracting Plan evaluation results are used to establish the Offeror’s commitment to the participation of Small Businesses under the CSS-FD contract; they are not factored into the Best Value trade-off. In addition, Volume V (Miscellaneous) is not evaluated so it is not factored into the Best Value trade-off.

Table M-1: Evaluation Order of Importance

Volume Number Title Order of Importance

I Technical/Management Most Important

Factor 1 Most Important

Sub-factor 1 Equal Importance to Sub-factor 2

Sub-factor 2 Equal Importance to Sub-factor 1

Factor 2 Less Important than Factor 1, Equal Importance to Factor 3

Factor 3 Less Important than Factor 1, Equal Importance to Factor 2

II Past Performance Less Important than Volume I, More Important than Volume III

III Price Less Important than Volume II

IV Small-Business Subcontracting Plan Not Factored in Best Value Trade-off

M.5 COMMUNICATION WITH OFFERORS

In accordance with AMS Policy Section 3.2.2.3.1.2.2, Communications with Offerors, the purpose of communications is to ensure mutual understanding between the Government and Offerors about all aspects of the procurement, including the Offerors' submittals/proposals.

Communications with Offerors may take place throughout the source selection process, through contract award, and following award as necessary.

Offeror responses to Communication Items may be considered in the evaluation of an Offeror’s proposal and serve as the basis for strengths, weaknesses, or risks. The Government reserves the right to allow Offerors to revise their proposals in response to Communications.

Communications may necessitate changes in the Government’s requirements or SIR. Where communications do not result in any changes in the Government’s requirements or SIR, the Government is not required to request or accept Offeror revisions.

The Government may hold one-on-one meetings with individual Offerors as it pertains to their offers. One-on-one communications may continue throughout the process at the Government’s

M - 4 discretion. Communications with one Offeror do not necessitate communications with other Offerors.

All communications between the Government and Offerors must be through the CO or individuals designated by the CO in writing.

M.6 EVALUATION APPROACH

The Volumes of each Offeror’s proposal will first be reviewed to determine whether they follow the instructions provided in Section L and include all of the required information. Omission of information or proposals that do not fully conform to Section L requirements may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from award consideration.

The Government reserves the right to award a contract from the initial submissions without communications; therefore, offerors are cautioned that their initial proposals should contain the best terms they intend to offer.

M.6.1 TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

Evaluators will identify strengths, weaknesses, and risks relative to the Technical/Management Factor evaluation criteria defined in Section M.7.1. Offerors’ written proposals including responses to written communications items will serve as the basis for the identification of strengths, weaknesses, and risks. Technical/Management evaluators will review “Technical Bases of Estimate (BOEs)” submitted per the instructions in Section L.9.4 and information contained within the Technical BOEs may also serve as the basis for the identification of strengths, weaknesses, and risks.

Individual evaluation criteria will be used to identify strengths, weaknesses, and risks whose definitions are listed in Table M-2. Based upon the strengths, weaknesses, and risks identified, evaluators will assign adjectival ratings to Elements, Sub-Factors and Factors. The range of adjectival ratings and their definitions are listed in Table M-3.

Table M-2: Definitions of Strength, Weakness, and Risk

Strength

An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has a positive impact on the probability of successful performance of the resulting contract.

Weakness An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has a negative impact on the probability of successful performance of the resulting contract.

Risk

An aspect of an offeror's proposal that, when assessed as to its probability of occurrence and the magnitude of its impact, presents an uncertainty as to the ability of the offeror to successfully perform the resulting contract.

M - 5

Table M-3: Adjectival Ratings for Technical/Management Factor Evaluation

Rating Definition

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

Good The combined impact of the identified strength(s) outweighs the combined impact of any identified weaknesses and risks.

Satisfactory

The combined impact of any identified strengths is approximately equivalent to the combined impact of any identified weaknesses and risks. If no strengths, weaknesses, or risks are identified, the Offeror will receive a Satisfactory rating for that Sub-factor, Factor or Element.

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

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

If one or more strengths are identified and no weaknesses or risks are identified, the Government will assess the magnitude of the impact of the identified strength(s) and apply its judgment to assign an adjectival rating. Similarly, if one or more weaknesses or risks are identified and no strengths are identified, the Government will assess the magnitude of the impact of the identified weakness(es) and risk(s) and apply its judgment to assign an adjectival rating.

Element ratings will serve as the basis for the associated Sub-factor ratings. The Sub-factor ratings will serve as the basis for the associated Factor ratings. Each Offeror’s Technical/Management Factor-level rating will be assigned based on the Sub-factor ratings, if applicable, and their order of importance by the Government using its professional judgment.

M.6.2 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s Past Performance record and assign a confidence rating based on the definitions in Section M.7.2.4. The confidence rating represents the Government’s assessment of the likelihood of an offeror’s successful performance under the contract based its record of Past Performance.

M.6.3 PRICE EVALUATION

The Government will evaluate Volume III (Price Proposal) in terms of the Total Evaluated Price and a Price Risk Rating.

M.6.4 SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN EVALUATION

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s strategy for utilizing Small, Small Disadvantaged, Women-Owned, and Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business concerns, as well as its consistency with their proposed Small Business Subcontract Management Approach. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s proposal meets socioeconomic goals as identified in the SIR. If the Offeror’s proposal does not meet socioeconomic goals as identified

M - 6 in the SIR, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s rationale and approach to meet these socioeconomic goals as the contract proceeds. An adjectival rating, per the definitions in Table M-6, will be assigned to each offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

M.7 EVALUATION CRITERIA

M.7.1 VOLUME I – TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT FACTOR

The Technical/Management Factor will be evaluated based on the sub-factors, elements, and the associated evaluation criteria identified below.

M.7.1.1 Factor 1 – Technical Approach

M.7.1.1.1 Sub-factor 1 – Technical Solution Sub-factor 1 evaluates the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed solution meets the requirements of Attachment J-1, Functional and Performance Specification (FPS) to successfully deploy CSS-FD.

M.7.1.1.1.1 Element 1 – Service Components The Government will evaluate:

1. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed solution for Data Validation and Mediation meets the requirements identified in FPS Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2.

2. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed solution for Flight Data Reconciliation meets the requirements identified in FPS Section 3.1.4.

3. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed solution for Flight Information Reconstitution meets the requirements identified in FPS Section 3.1.5.

4. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed solution for Flight Object Management meets the requirements identified in FPS Section 3.1.6.

5. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed solution for Identity and Access Management meets the requirements identified in FPS Section 3.1.7.

M.7.1.1.1.2 Element 2 – Flight Planning

1. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed solution for implementation of the FF-ICE Application aligns with FF-ICE guidance and requirements identified in FPS Section 3.1.8.1.

2. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed solution for Flight Plan Filing and Flight Plan Updates meets the requirements identified in FPS Sections 3.1.8.2 through 3.1.8.5.

3. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed solution for Trial Request Processing meets the requirements identified in FPS Section 3.1.8.7.

4. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed solution for Feedback by Reference and associated constraints meets the requirements identified in FPS Section 3.1.8.8.

M - 7

5. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed solution for Return ATC Preferences meets the requirements identified in FPS Section 3.1.8.9.

M.7.1.1.1.3 Element 3 – Business Rules Management System (BRMS)

1. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed solution for a Business Rules Management System meets the requirements identified in FPS Section 3.2.

2. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed solution is scalable to support the dynamic nature of flight plan filing and flight plan updates identified in FPS Section 3.2.

3. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed solution for the BRMS development environment meets requirements identified in FPS Section 3.2.

4. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed solution for Business Rules Management and Version Control Repository meets the requirements identified in FPS Section 3.2.

5. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed solution for Integration of Service Component services from/through/by Business Rules meets the requirements identified in FPS Section 3.2.

6. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed solution for a flexible and expressive Business Rules Engine meets the requirements identified in FPS Section 3.2. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed solution demonstrates support for various types of rules, conditions, and actions to accommodate all Flight Information scenarios.

M.7.1.1.1.4 Element 4 – Data and Systems Management

1. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed solution for Data Publication and Request Reply Services meets the requirements identified in FPS Section 3.3.

2. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed solution for Data Storage meets the requirements identified in FPS Section 3.4.

3. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed solution for System Monitoring and Management meets the requirements identified in FPS Section 3.5.

4. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed solution for System Logging meets the requirements identified in FPS Section 3.6.

M.7.1.1.1.5 Element 5 – Performance

1. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed solution meets the Flight Plan Handling Performance requirements identified in FPS Section 4.1.

2. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed solution meets the System Load requirements identified in FPS Section 4.2.

3. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed solution meets the Reliability, Maintainability and Availability requirements identified in FPS Section 4.3.

M - 8

M.7.1.1.1.6 Element 6 – Interfaces, Integration, and Security

1. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed solution can effectively integrate into the FAA provided hosting environment identified in Attachment J-9, FAA Cloud Architecture.

2. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed solution supports the interfaces to other FAA Enterprise Architecture Elements identified in FPS Section 5.1.

3. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed solution supports the Data Sources identified in FPS Section 5.2.

4. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed solution is extensible based on the criteria defined in PWS Section 4.2.5.1 to effectively integrate Phase 2 capabilities.

5. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed solution enables the “High” impact level system authorization of CSS-FD in accordance with Attachment J-2, Security Controls.

M.7.1.1.2 Sub-factor 2 – Solution Development Sub-factor 2 evaluates the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed approach to Solution Development meets the requirements of the PWS to successfully deploy CSS-FD and achieve the objectives in Attachment J-0, CSS-FD Strategy.

M.7.1.1.2.1 Element 1 – System Engineering

1. The degree to which the Offeror proposes a System Engineering process that ensures an effective delivery of CSS-FD. The degree to which the Offeror’s System Engineering process addresses all design, development, integration, test and in-service management aspects of CSS-FD.

2. The degree to which the Offeror proposes a sound and effective approach to conducting Requirements Review(s) and Software Design Review(s) that align with the proposed software development approach and supports the achievement of the schedule milestones in Section F.

3. The degree to which the Offeror proposes a sound and effective approach to developing Software Documentation meets the requirements of PWS Section C.4.2.3 and facilitates Government acceptance.

4. The degree to which the Offeror proposes a sound and effective approach to satisfy Security requirements of PWS Section C.4.3 and Attachment J-2, Security Controls to achieve initial security authorization, annual security authorization, and a security authorization when there are major changes.

5. The degree to which the Offeror’s approach to Systems Safety facilitates compliance with

RTCA DO-278A.

M.7.1.1.2.2 Element 2 – Software Development

M - 9

1. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed Software Development approach, methodology, techniques and tools (1) is an effective means to satisfy the PWS requirements, (2) addresses all aspects of the software development lifecycle, (3) considers the design characteristics in PWS Section C.4.2.5.1, (4) supports the strategic objectives in Attachment J-0, CSS-FD Strategy, (5) and ensures the successful delivery of the CSS-FD solution.

2. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed Software Development approach effectively incorporates configuration management and quality assurance to ensure successful delivery of CSS-FD.

3. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed approach for use of contractor and/or FAA-provided software development environments during development and test is sound, comprehensive, and demonstrates a realistic and effective use of the proposed environments.

4. The degree to which Offeror’s proposed approach to Collaborative Design Workshops promotes effective collaboration between the Government and Contractor and facilitates Government acceptance of the CSS-FD solution.

5. The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates recent and relevant experience implementing their proposed software development approach for work efforts of similar size, scope and complexity to CSS-FD.

M.7.1.1.2.3 Element 3 – Test and Evaluation

1. The degree to which the Offeror proposes a comprehensive approach to plan, manage, document and conduct a Test and Evaluation program that increases the likelihood for successful test outcomes within the planned schedule.

2. The degree to which the Offeror proposes a sound and effective approach to conduct Test and Evaluation that aligns to their software development approach and supports the achievement of schedule milestones in Section F.

3. The degree to which the Offeror proposes a viable and effective approach to Test Capability Accreditation to ensure tests are acceptable for the intended purpose and will yield accurate results.

4. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed Test and Evaluation approach effectively incorporates configuration management and quality assurance to ensure successful delivery of CSS-FD.

5. The degree to which the Offeror possesses experience utilizing their proposed Test and Evaluation approach for work efforts similar in size, scope and complexity to CSS-FD.

M.7.1.2 Factor 2 – In-Service Support

1. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed approach for providing In-Service lifecycle

M - 10 support to include software maintenance and Tiered Support is realistic and demonstrates an effective approach to support CSS-FD throughout the contract period of performance.

2. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed training development process will allow the Offeror to deliver training deliverables to satisfy the requirements in the PWS Section C.4.5.6 to meet the milestones contained in Section F.

3. The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates the knowledge, skill and experience to conduct training for the courses identified in the PWS Section C.4.5.6.

4. The degree to which the Offeror possesses experience utilizing their proposed approach for In-Service Management for work efforts similar in size, scope and complexity to

CSS-FD.

M.7.1.3 Factor 3 – Management Approach

1. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed program management organization is an effective means to facilitate the successful execution of the work efforts identified in PWS Section C.4.

2. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed program management approach demonstrates the ability to effectively manage program cost, schedule, and technical performance.

3. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed program management approach will facilitate effective collaboration with the Government.

4. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed key personnel possess the expertise and experience necessary to successfully accomplish the responsibilities of their respective positions, as described in Section H, Special Contract Requirements, Clause 3.8.2-17.

5. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed IMS is comprehensive, achievable, aligns with their software development approach identifies, and provides realistic dates for Section F milestones and deliverables in Attachment J-4, Contract Data Requirements Listing (CDRLs).

6. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed IMS identifies critical and high-risk efforts and develops realistic plans to address them. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed IMS incorporates schedule risk and provides adequate risk mitigation.

M.7.2 VOLUME II – PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

Offeror Past Performance will be evaluated based upon: (1) Past Performance Summaries submitted by the Offeror; (2) Customer responses to the Past Performance Surveys; (3) and any Supplemental Past Performance Information collected by the Government. An Offeror’s failure to provide sufficient detail on past performance may result in an offeror receiving a “Low Confidence” rating as defined in Table M-5.

M.7.2.1 Past Performance Evaluation The Government will assess the Offeror’s Past Performance to determine the level to which the Offeror’s described past performance is recent and relevant for software development efforts of similar size, scope, and complexity as described below.

M - 11

• Recency: The Offeror’s Past Performance Reference must have been performed within five years of the date of the proposal submission.

• Relevance: The Offeror’s Past Performance Reference must be comparable to CSS-FD in terms of the functional scope and/or complexity and representative of the Offeror’s capability, experience, and performance relative to the CSS-FD PWS.

• Size: The Offeror’s Past Performance Reference must demonstrate experience developing software of comparable size based on (TBD).

• Scope: The Offeror’s Past Performance Reference must demonstrate experience performing work efforts similar to those identified in the PWS.

• Complexity: The Offeror’s Past Performance Reference must demonstrate experience with software development that has multiple data sources, robust business rules, stringent performance, and is conducted in a collaborative manner with their customer.

The Government will assess the results of the Past Performance Surveys submitted by the Offeror’s customers. The Past Performance Surveys must be from customers for the work described in the Offeror’s past experience and past performance summaries.

The Government will assess the Past Performance Survey responses received to determine the quality of services provided by the Offeror based upon feedback from the Offeror’s customers.

The Government reserves the right to contact each customer to obtain additional or clarifying information on how well the Offeror performed under the contract requirements, cost, schedule, and performance. The Government will assess the following experience areas as part of the Past Performance Surveys:

• Quality of Service Delivery: The Offeror’s Past Performance demonstrates a successful record of consistently providing quality products and services that meet or exceed the customer’s requirements.

• Timeliness of Performance: The Offeror’s Past Performance demonstrates a successful record of achieving milestones, fulfilling contract requirements on time, and meeting delivery schedules.

• Cost Control: The Government will evaluate whether the past performance responses indicate that the Offeror has a favorable record of cost control accurately forecasting target costs, target cost relationships to actual costs, billing, and cost efficiency.

• Program Management: The Offeror’s Past Performance demonstrates a successful record of: (1) managing programs; (2) assessing performance and implementing corrective actions when performance shortfalls are identified; and (3) providing an adequate level of supervision of contractor personnel and their work efforts.

• Customer Relationship: The Offeror’s Past Performance demonstrates a successful record of effectively communicating with customers, being proactive, and acting in partnership with the customer to achieve program objectives.

M.7.2.2 Supplemental Past Performance Information

M - 12

The Government reserves the right to consider Past Performance data from other sources such as the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and/or Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). As appropriate, this information may be included and considered in the evaluation documentation and selection process as a potential risk or a potential benefit.

Disclosure of Negative Information. If the Government receives negative information that would have a significant effect on the likelihood of award to an offeror, the CO will disclose the information and provide the offeror an opportunity to respond. The Government will consider the offeror’s response, facts obtained from the questionnaire, interview, or other sources when Evaluating Disputed or Negative Information.

M.7.2.3 Past Performance Experience Area Ratings Based on its assessment of the customer responses to the Past Performance Surveys and any Government-completed Past Performance Survey forms per the process described in Section M.7.2.2, the Government will assign an adjectival rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable to each experience area based on the definitions in Table M-4.

Table M-4: Ratings for Past Performance Experience Area Evaluation

Acceptable Responses to Past Performance Survey questions are Satisfactory or better.

Unacceptable Responses to Past Performance Survey questions are Marginal or Unsatisfactory.

M.7.2.4 Past Performance Rating Based upon the documented Past Performance record, the Government will assign a factor-level rating of High Confidence, Sufficient Confidence, or Low Confidence according to the criteria specified in Table M-5. If the Government receives negative Past Performance information that would have a significant effect on the likelihood of award to an offeror, the Government will disclose the information and provide the offeror with an opportunity to respond.

Table M-5: Adjectival Ratings for Past Performance Factor Evaluation Rating Description

High Confidence

Based on the Government’s assessment of the Offeror’s performance record, there is high confidence that the offeror will be able to successfully provide CSS-FD scope of work required under the contract. Little or no Government intervention is likely to be required for the offeror to achieve a satisfactory level of performance.

Sufficient Confidence

Based on the Government’s assessment of the Offeror’s performance record, there is sufficient confidence that the offeror will be able to successfully provide CSS-FD scope of work required under the contract. Some Government intervention may be required for the Contractor to achieve a satisfactory level of performance.

M - 13

Rating Description

Low Confidence

Based on the Government’s assessment of the Offeror’s performance record, there is low confidence that the Offeror will be able to successfully provide the CSS-FD scope of work required under the contract. Significant Government intervention is likely to be required for the Contractors to achieve a satisfactory level of performance.

M.7.3 VOLUME III – PRICE FACTOR

The evaluation of the Price Factor will be based on the Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP) and a qualitative price risk rating. The evaluation of the Price Factor will assess the reasonableness, realism, balance, and technical consistency (as identified in Section M.7.3.3) of the Offeror’s proposed price. The TEP and the qualitative price risk rating for each Offeror are separate outputs of the Price Evaluation, they are of equal importance, and both will be considered by the Government in its Best Value trade-off analysis. To be eligible for award, an Offeror’s TEP must be determined by the Government to be Fair and Reasonable per AMS Policy T3.2.3.

The Government may access the offeror’s Forward Pricing Rate Recommendations (FPRR), Forward Pricing Rate Agreements (FPRA), or Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) audited rates, or additional information as necessary to support the applicable assessments.

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Time & Material (T&M) labor rates for fair and reasonableness. This assessment will not be included in the Government’s TEP evaluation.

M.7.3.1 Total Evaluated Price The Offeror’s TEP will be determined by the sum of: (1) the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) using the Cost/Price workbook (or model) populated and submitted by Offeror; and (2) any Most Probable Cost (MPC) adjustments calculated by the Government based upon its cost realism assessment of each proposed Cost Reimbursable Contract Line Item Number (CLIN). The TEP will be computed for Phase 1 scope for the contract period of performance (base period and all options). This does not bind the Government to exercise the Options nor order maximum quantities.

For Cost Reimbursable CLINs included within the TEP calculation, the Government will assess the cost realism of the proposed costs and calculate the MPC. Cost realism analysis determines whether proposed costs may be overstated or understated with respect to the Offeror’s proposed approaches to performing SIR requirements. The Offeror’s MPC will be determined by adjusting the proposed cost, and fee when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the Government’s cost realism analysis.

For Cost-Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) CLINs, the proposed fixed fee will be part of the MPC. For Cost-Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) CLINs, the proposed target cost and incentive fee will be

M - 14 adjusted commensurate with the Government’s probable cost determination and included in the MPC calculation.

M.7.3.2 Cost/Price Proposal Risk The Government will perform a qualitative risk assessment of the Cost/Price Proposals and assign an overall risk rating. The qualitative risk assessment represents the Government’s judgment of the Offeror’s ability to perform the required work efforts at proposed prices. Risk will be evaluated at the proposal level but will not be numerically scored. The three levels of risks are defined as follows:

High Risk: Likely to cause significant increases in cost, even with increased Contractor emphasis and increased Government oversight.

Moderate Risk: Could potentially cause some increases in cost. However, increased Contractor emphasis and increased Government oversight may be able to overcome difficulties.

Low Risk: Limited potential to cause increases in cost. Normal Contractor effort and normal Government oversight will increase the likelihood to overcome difficulties.

M.7.3.3 Other Price Factors All proposed prices in the Offeror’s price proposal submission will be used as inputs to the Government’s assessment of Reasonableness, Realism, Balance, and Technical Consistency. The following items will be considered within the assessment of the Risk in accordance with Section M.7.3.2..

a) Reasonableness: The Government will analyze each price proposal for reasonableness in accordance with AMS Policy 3.2.3 and AMS Procurement Guidance 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.

b) Realism: The Government will conduct a realism analysis to ensure that proposed prices are not so low that contract performance would be put at risk from either a technical and/or cost perspective. The Government will perform a price realism analysis as applicable to ensure realistic prices in accordance with the criteria set forth in AMS T.3.2.3.A.1.i.

c) Balance: The Government will analyze each price proposal for balance in accordance with

AMS Procurement Guidance T3.2.3(A)(1)(e)(4) Unbalanced Offers. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more CLINs is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis methods. The Government will analyze all priced CLINs for balance, including the proposed unit prices for all the T&M labor category CLINs. The Government may, at its discretion, reject a proposal if a determination is made that the pricing proposal is materially unbalanced.

d) Technical Consistency: The Government will assess the consistency of the Price Proposal with the technical solutions and approaches described in the Technical/Management

M - 15

Proposal. This assessment will be based upon a comparison of the BOEs submitted with the Price Proposal and other relevant information to the Technical/Management Proposal. A greater degree of inconsistency may be assessed as representing more risk within an offer.

M.7.4 VOLUME IV – SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN FACTOR

The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan is compliant with FAA AMS Clause 3.6.1-4 as well as the goals set forth in Section L.10. As part of this evaluation, the Government will assess whether the Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan demonstrates that the subcontracting goals apply over the full life of the contract, including the base period and each exercised option period. The Government will rate the Small Business Subcontracting Plan as either Acceptable or Unacceptable. Any non-small business Offeror that fails to submit an acceptable subcontracting plan or to correct deficiencies within the time specified by the CO may be ineligible for award.

The following adjectival ratings listed in Table M-6 will be used when evaluating the Small Business Subcontracting Plans.

Table M-6: Adjectival Ratings for Small Business Subcontracting Factor Evaluation

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 that meets the specified subcontracting goals or the AMS content requirements.

M.7.4 Volume IV – Small Business Subcontracting Plan Factor