M_TFM2_2016-08-02.pdf

TFM-2 SIR DTFAWA-16-R-00010 Section M

Part IV -- Section M

Evaluation Criteria for Award

Table of Contents

M.1 FAA AMS CLAUSES

M.2 RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATION/ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARD

M.3 BASIS FOR AWARD

M.4 COMMUNICATIONS WITH OFFERORS

M.5 EVALUATION ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

M.6 EVALUATION PROCESS

M.6.1 GENERAL

M.6.2 RISK ANALYSIS

M.6.2 VOLUME I -- TECHNICAL & MANAGEMENT

M.6.3 VOLUME II – PAST PERFORMANCE

M.6.4 VOLUME III – COST/PRICE

M.6.5 VOLUME IV -- CONTRACT TRANSITION PLAN

M.6.6 VOLUME V -- OFFER AND OTHER DOCUMENTS

M.1 FAA AMS CLAUSES

3.1-1 Clauses and Provisions Incorporated by reference (July 2011)

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 con-tractors may obtain the full text via Internet at: http://conwrite.faa.gov.

Clause Number and Title

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)

M.2 RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATION/ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARD

An Offeror must be determined responsible by the Contracting Officer in order to receive con-tract award. Offerors must have adequate financial resources to perform the contract or be able to obtain them, be able to comply with the delivery schedule, capable of performing the magni-tude and scope of the work, have a satisfactory performance record, have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics, have necessary skills, equipment and facilities or ability to obtain them, and be otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regu-lation including any additional requirements identified in FAA AMS 3.2.2.2. The Government reserves the right to conduct a pre-award survey on a proposed Offeror or any proposed subcon-tractors.

In accordance with AMS 3.6.1-4 prior compliance of the Offeror with small business subcon-tracting plans under previous contracts will be considered by the Contracting Officer in deter-mining the responsibility of the offeror for award of the contract.

Proposals must be submitted in accordance with Section L 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.

M.3 BASIS FOR AWARD

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with the FAA Acquisition Management System (AMS). The best value decision will be based on an evaluation as described in this Section M. Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is determined to represent the best value to the FAA. “Best value” describes the offer that is most advantageous to the FAA based the evaluation of the Offeror’s Technical and Management (Volume I); Past Performance (Volume II); Cost/Price (Volume III); Contract Transition Plan (Volume IV); and Offer and Other Documents (Volume V) risks will also be considered.

Offerors are advised that “best value” does not require an award be made to either the Offeror submitting the highest rated technical solution, or to the Offeror submitting the lowest price, e.g., the proposal with the lowest price may not be judged to represent the best value to the Government.

While the government evaluation team and the Source Selection Official (SSO) will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by nature, is subjective and professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

The FAA intends to award one contract from this SIR. The FAA reserves the right to make no award if such action is determined to be in the FAA’s best interest.

M.4 COMMUNICATIONS WITH OFFERORS

The Contracting Officer may communicate with Offerors orally or in writing during the course of the evaluation. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to conduct communications with one, some, all, or none of the Offerors. Communications with one or more Offerors does not ne-cessitate communication with all Offerors. Responses to communication requests will be treated the same as information submitted with the written proposals and may serve as the basis for strengths, weaknesses, or risks. Offerors are advised that the Contracting Officer reserves the right to make an award based on initial proposals received without communications. Offerors must not assume that they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss, or re-vise their proposal.

M.5 EVALUATION ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

The Volume order of importance, from greatest to least, is:

Volume I Technical and Management

Volume II Past Performance

Volume III Cost/Price

Volume IV Contract Transition Plan

Volume V Offer and Other Documents

M.6 EVALUATION PROCESS

M.6.1 General

The FAA reserves the right to not accept any questions, clarification requests, and notifications of discrepancies, errors, or omissions relating to this SIR not submitted in accordance with L.2.4.

Each Offeror’s proposal will be reviewed to determine compliance with the instructions provided in Section L. The FAA may, or may not, reject incomplete proposals or those proposals not sub-mitted in accordance with the SIR preparation and delivery instructions.

Late proposal submissions will be governed in accordance with AMS 3.2.2.3-14.

If a proposal volume exceeds the maximum page limits, those pages over the limit will not be evaluated or considered.

For any information not in its appropriate section and not appropriately referenced, the FAA reserves the right to designate the information as omitted.

Proposals with only general statements of understanding to the SIR objectives, omissions, incomplete responses, unrealistic technical, schedule or cost, or inconsistencies, may be deemed to be reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence or a failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the SIR requirements. Information not in its appropriate section per the Section L instructions and not appropriately referenced may be deemed to have been omitted.

Any negative findings such as above may impact the resulting evaluation ratings or risk assessments and may be grounds for elimination of the proposal from award consideration.

Offerors are cautioned as to the veracity of statements, promises or offers advanced during the course of this evaluation, as the FAA reserves the right to invoke any statement, promise, representation or other offer of any kind made during the evaluation process through the creation of one or more Section H clauses.

If at any time during the evaluation process the FAA concludes that an Offeror is not likely to receive award, the FAA reserves the right to eliminate the Offeror from further consideration for award.

The FAA reserves the right to reject any exception, deviation, or assumption. The FAA reserves the right to deem a statement that contradicts a SIR requirement an exception or deviation, whether or not the offeror identifies it as such.

The FAA reserves the right to waive any requirement, minor irregularity or discrepancy if doing so is in the best interests of the FAA.

Volume I, Technical and Management, will be evaluated and rated as described in Section M.6.2. Volume II, Past Performance will be evaluated and assessed a risk as described in Section M.6.3. Volume III, Cost/Price, will be evaluated and assessed a Total Evaluated Price as described in Section M.6.4. Volume IV, Contract Transition Plan, will be evaluated and assessed a risk as described in Section M.6.5. Volume V, Offer and Other Documents, will be evaluated as described in Section M.6.6.

M.6.2 Risk Analysis

The FAA reserves the right to identify risks throughout the evaluation process, assess them as low, medium, or high, and consider them in the Best Value Analysis.

M.6.2 Volume I -- Technical & Management

Volume I will be evaluated and rated in accordance with this section.

M.6.2.1 Evaluation Factors and Order of Importance

The Technical & Management Volume includes the following four factors:

Factor 1: Operations and Maintenance Factor 2: Security Management Factor 3: Engineering, Development Test and Implementation Factor 4: Program Management

Factors 1 and 2 are equally important and each is individually more important than Factor 3 which is more important than Factor 4. Subfactors within a factor are equally important. The elements are not individually rated but contribute to the subfactor/factor rating.

The following paragraphs define the subfactors comprising each Technical/Management evalua-tion factor.

M.6.2.2 Factor 1 -- Operations & Maintenance

Subfactor A – First Level Support

Element 1. System Operation and Maintenance. Degree to which the proposed processes and tools assures optimal operating, maintaining and supporting the sustainment of the TFMS products to meet the First Level Support requirements in Section C.10.1 for the TFMS products listed in Section C, Appendix A, at all locations specified in Section F.5, and assure the system meets the functional and performance requirements in the System Subsystem Specification (SSS) and Interface Requirements Specification (IRS).

Element 2. Problem Identification. Degree to which the proposed processes and tools en-sure the detection and identification of system problems in a timely manner.

Element 3. Problem Notification and Escalation. Degree to which the proposed processes and tools ensure timely problem notification and escalation of system problems and help re-quests.

Element 4. Problem Impact Mitigation. Degree to which the proposed processes and tools mitigate the impact of problems and outages to other TFMS products.

Element 5. Problem Resolution. Degree to which the proposed processes and tools ensure timely restoration of services and FAA insight into the status of problem resolution activities.

Element 6. User/Customer/Client Support. Degree to which the proposed processes and tools facilitate responding to user/customer/client help requests and measuring response time and effectiveness.

Subfactor B – Second Level Engineering (SLE) and Support

Element 1. System Sustainment. Degree to which the proposed processes and tools assures meeting the Second Level Engineering (SLE) and Support requirements defined in Section C.10.2 for the TFMS products listed in Section C, Appendix A, at all locations specified in Section F.5, and assure the system meets the functional and performance requirements in the System Subsystem Specification (SSS) and Interface Requirements Specification (IRS).

Element 2. Problem Analysis. Degree to which the proposed processes and tools assure ef-fective and timely assessment, root cause analysis, and tracking of software problems impact-ing system operations.

Element 3. Problem Resolution. Degree to which the proposed processes and tools support identification of problem resolution alternatives and assessment of potential implementation risk and impacts of solutions.

Element 4. Software Management. Degree to which the proposed processes and tools as-sure effective software change management and efficient packaging of software patch-es/updates.

Element 5. System Performance Metrics. Degree to which the proposed processes and tools support metric collection, analysis, identification of trends and reporting.

Subfactor C – Aeronautical Adaptation Data

Element 1. Identify Required Updates. Degree to which the proposed processes and tools assure timely collection and identification of changes to adaptation source data.

Element 2. Quality Assurance. Degree to which the proposed processes and tools for updat-ing and testing adaptation files ensure data quality.

Element 3. Deploying Updates. Degree to which the proposed processes and tools assure deploying timely updates to the operational system and mitigate risks of potential negative impacts.

M.6.2.3 Factor 2 – Security

Subfactor A – Access Management and Configuration Control

Element 1. Access Control. Degree to which the proposed processes and tools assure effec-tive user/client identification, authentication and access control.

Element 2. Privacy and Data Protection. Degree to which the proposed processes and tools assure privacy protection, data loss prevention and media protection, e.g., encryption.

Element 3. Prevent Unauthorized Changes. Degree to which the proposed processes and tools assure prevention of unauthorized changes to system configuration.

Element 4. Flaw Detection and Remediation. Degree to which the proposed processes and tools assure timely and effective system integrity flaw detection and remediation.

Subfactor B – Event Logging, Auditing and Analysis

Element 1. Event Detection and Logging. Degree to which the proposed processes and tools assure detection and logging security events.

Element 2. Log Analysis and Protection. Degree to which the proposed processes and tools support analyzing security event logs and protecting logs against modification and deletion.

Subfactor C – Security Risk Management

Element 1. Risk Identification. Degree to which the proposed processes and tools assure timely identification system security weaknesses and risks.

Element 2. Risk Mitigation. Degree to which the proposed processes and tools support tracking actions to mitigate risks and remediate weaknesses, e.g., Plan of Action and Mile-stones (POAM).

Element 3. Change Risk Assessment. Degree to which the proposed processes and tools support analyzing proposed system changes for security risks.

M.6.2.4 Factor 3 -- Engineering, Development, Test and Implementation

Subfactor A -- Engineering Process

Element 1. Engineering Processes and Tools. Degree to which the proposed processes and tools assure development of viable system/software requirements, solution alternatives, de-sign and software products appropriate for the first three potential TFMS releases effectively and efficiently.

Element 2. Managing Concurrent Tasks. Degree to which the proposed processes and tools identifying design and development interdependencies, maintaining their visibility and ensuring concurrent work on overlapping releases is synchronized.

Subfactor B -- Schedule and Milestones

Element 1. Schedule. Degree to which the proposed integrated schedule for the first three potential releases is complete and realistic.

Element 2. Software Estimate. Degree to which the proposed basis for the estimated soft-ware sizes and productivity rates for the first three potential releases is realistic. NOTE: the FAA will assess as a higher risk any proposed solution other than modifying the existing sys-tem.

Subfactor C -- Development Environment

Element 1. Development Processes and Tools. Degree to which the proposed processes and tools assure establishing and maintaining a cohesive, effective and efficient development en-vironment.

Element 2. Configuration Management. Degree to which the proposed processes and tools assure effective management of a minimum of three concurrent versions (e.g., operations, development, formal test) of each TFMS product.

Element 3. Software Efficiency. Degree to which the proposed processes and tools support-ing software reuse and extensibility.

Element 4. Transparency. Degree to which the proposed processes and tools effectively fa-cilitating technical reviews and providing the FAA insight into development progress and completeness.

Subfactor D -- Test and Implementation

Element 1. Test Effectiveness. Degree to which the proposed processes and tools for con-ducting both internal tests and formal FAA acceptance tests ensures timely identification of problems, issues and risks prior to implementing changes to system components supporting operations.

Element 2. Implementation. Degree to which the proposed processes and tools mitigate po-tential issues due to system changes, maximize transparency to stakeholders and ensure min-imal disruption to operations when implementing system changes.

M.6.2.5 Factor 4 -- Program Management

Subfactor A – Program Structure and Key Personnel

Element 1. Organization. Degree to which the proposed organizational structure, functions, roles, and hierarchy, facilitates accountability and effective program execution.

Element 2. Coordination. Degree to which the proposed processes and tools for knowledge management, communication and issue/problem escalation procedures facilitate efficient and timely coordination of program status, issues, and risks.

Element 3. Key Personnel. Degree to which the proposed key personnel qualifications demonstrate the knowledge and experience needed to successfully execute the program.

Element 4. Obtaining and Retaining Staff. Degree to which the proposed approach to ob-taining and retaining qualified personnel ensure the size, experience and expertise of the workforce is adequate and minimizes program risk associated with staff turnover.

Subfactor B – Risk Management

Element 1. Identification and Mitigation. Degree to which the proposed processes and tools ensure identification, categorization, prioritization, and mitigation of program and sys-tem risks throughout the lifecycle of the program.

Element 2. Status Communication. Degree to which the proposed processes and tools as-sure timely communication of risk factors and their status throughout the program organiza-tion and with the FAA.

Subfactor C – Performance Management

Element 1. Measure Performance and Quality. Degree to which the proposed processes and tools measure program, system and product performance and quality metrics throughout all phases of the program life cycle.

Element 2. Transparency. Degree to which the proposed processes and tools assure FAA insight into program, system and product cost performance and trends.

Element 3. Process Improvement. Degree to which the proposed processes and tools facili-tate improving efficiency of program execution.

M.6.2.6 Technical & Management Evaluation Ratings

For Volume I, each subfactor will be evaluated and given an adjectival rating. Each factor will receive a factor-level adjectival rating, based upon the subfactor-level adjectival ratings. Volume I will receive a single volume-level adjectival rating based upon the factor level adjectival ratings and their order of importance. The adjectival rating descriptions are defined in Table M.1.

Table M.1 Adjectival Technical and Management Rating Definitions

Rating Definition

Excellent The Offeror’s response comprehensively addresses the contractual require-ments. Weaknesses, if any, have minimal impact. The combined impact of the strengths far outweighs the combined impact of any weaknesses.

Good

The Offeror’s response ranges from adequately to comprehensively addressing the contractual requirements. The combined impact of the strengths outweighs the combined impact of any weaknesses.

Satisfactory

The Offeror’s response adequately addresses the contractual requirements. Nei-ther the combined impact of any strengths nor the combined impact of any weaknesses outweighs each other.

Marginal

The Offeror’s response does not adequately address the contractual require-ments. The combined impact of the weaknesses outweighs the combined im-pact of any strengths.

Unsatisfactory

The Offeror’s response does not adequately address the contractual require-ments. The combined impact of the weaknesses far outweighs the combined impact of any strengths.

Key words used in above table are defined as follows:

Strength: An aspect of a proposal that would positively impact performance of the resulting con-tract, exceed the minimum requirements, or otherwise benefit the Government.

Weakness: An aspect of a proposal that would negatively impact performance of the resulting contract, fail to meet the minimum requirements, or otherwise harm the Government.

M.6.2.7 Technical and Management Exceptions, Deviations and Assumptions

The FAA reserves the right to reject any request for any exceptions, deviations, or assumption.

The FAA reserves the right to deem a statement that contradicts a SIR requirement an exception or deviation, whether or not the offeror identifies it as such.

M.6.3 Volume II – Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s (or if relevant, subcontractors’) examples of demon-strated past performance. Any additional past experience examples beyond the first three will not be considered in the evaluation.

The Government will review the Past Performance Surveys received from the customer’s cited in the Offeror’s Past Performance Survey Record. The information contained in the past perfor-mance surveys is considered sensitive and will not be released to Offerors.

The Government reserves the right to obtain additional past performance information for the Of-feror (prime and any proposed teammates) from the Contractor Performance Assessment Report-ing System (CPARS), Dun & Bradstreet reports, DCMA, DCAA, previous contracts and other sources as required. For any past performance concerns discovered, the Government reserves the right to consider them to still exist if not adequately addressed by the Offeror.

Past performance evaluations will only be conducted on information determined to be relevant and recent. The Government will determine relevancy and recency of Offeror-provided infor-mation as well as information obtained from other sources. The definitions for relevant and re-cent are as follows:

“Recent” means that the instance of relevant past performance must have been performed for more than the last 12 consecutive months, or completed within the last three years of the pro-posal submission.

“Relevant” relates to services the Offeror has previously performed as a prime contractor for the government and/or private industry customers providing products and services of similar size, scope and complexity as compared to the requirements of this SIR.

Volume II will receive an overall risk rating of High, Moderate, or Low as defined in Table M.2.

The Past Performance risk will address the probability of the Offeror successfully accomplishing the SIR requirements based on relevant and recent past performance.

Table M.2 Past Performance Risk Rating Definitions

Low Risk

Based on the Offeror’s past performance, there is no doubt or only limited concerns as to whether the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required efforts.

Moderate Risk

Based on the Offeror’s past performance, there are concerns as to whether the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required efforts.

High Risk

Based on the Offeror’s past performance, there is substantial doubt as to whether the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required ef-forts.

M.6.4 Volume III – Cost/Price

The FAA will evaluate proposed pricing for all CLINs for reasonableness and balance, and re-view proposals for completeness, consistency, and traceability. Cost/Price proposals will not be scored or rated.

M.6.4.1 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Using the populated Cost/Price workbook (Attachment L-3) submitted by Offeror, the FAA will evaluate the Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal to estimate the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). In eval-uating offers for source selection, the FAA will use the TEP which includes base and all options.

The evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). The TEP will be equal to the sum of:

1) The Most Probable Cost (MPC) for priced CPFF and CPIF CLINs;

2) Proposed Price for the Firm-Fixed Price CLIN;

3) The proposed prices for CLINs 6, 7, and 8 (T&M) based on the result from multiply-ing the government specified hours by the proposed fully burdened rate for each labor category; and

4) CLINs with FAA provided estimated amounts.

M.6.4.2 Fee/Profit

The FAA will review the proposed fee/profit for the priced cost-type CLINs and assess the de-gree of risk shared between the Offeror and the FAA.

M.6.4.3 Reasonableness

The FAA will evaluate each cost/price proposal for reasonableness in accordance with AMS Pol-icy Section 3.2.3 and AMS Policy and Procurement Guidance Section T3.2.3. A cost/price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a pru-dent person in the conduct of competitive business.

M.6.4.4 Cost Realism

For cost type CLINs, the FAA will evaluate realism of proposed costs, the basis of estimate and any assumptions. The realism analysis will assess the compatibility of proposed cost/price with the proposed scope and effort and will determine whether the proposed costs in an Offeror's pro-posal are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the various elements of the Offeror's technical proposal. Realistic costs are verifiable, complete, accurate, and supported by an estimating methodology that is logical, appropriate, and adequately explained.

For cost type CLINs, the FAA will determine the most probable cost (MPC) of performance for each Offeror. The MPC may differ from the proposed cost and is determined by adjusting the Offeror's proposed cost, as needed, to reflect any additions or reductions to cost elements to real-istic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis. The MPC and the proposed fee will be used in the trade-off evaluation process to determine best value.

The FAA reserves the right to eliminate an Offeror’s proposal from competition if the FAA de-termines the proposed cost to be unrealistically low on the basis that the Offeror does not under-stand the requirements or has developed and submitted an impracticable and/or unsubstantiated proposal. The burden of proof for credibility rests with the Offeror. The realism analysis will NOT be performed for those CLINs where the FAA has provided Not-to-Exceed (NTE) ceiling amounts.

M.6.4.5 Cost/Price Balance

The FAA will evaluate proposals to determine whether the Offeror’s proposal contains unbal-anced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists where, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more CLINs is significantly understated or overstated as indicated by the applica-tion of price analysis techniques; or the offer is so grossly unbalanced that its acceptance would be equivalent to allowing an advanced payment. 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.

M.6.4.6 Completeness/Consistency/Traceability

The FAA will review each cost/price proposal to determine whether it: includes all required pric-ing information; aligns with summary pricing tables and the information provided with Volume I; provides adequate Basis of Estimates; and is traceable to supporting pricing details. The FAA reserves the right to require additional information. The FAA reserves the right to reject pro-posals lacking completeness, consistency or traceability.

M.6.4.7 Cost/Price Exceptions, Deviations and Assumptions

The FAA reserves the right to reject any exception, deviation, or assumption. The FAA reserves the right to deem a statement that contradicts a SIR requirement an exception or deviation, whether or not the offeror identifies it as such.

M.6.5 Volume IV -- Contract Transition Plan

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s “phase-in” Contract Transition Plan for risk and as-sign an overall risk rating of High, Moderate, or Low as defined in Table M.3.

Table M.3 Transition Plan Risk Rating Definitions

Low Risk

Based on evaluation of the Offeror’s Transition Plan, there is no doubt or only limited concerns as to whether the Offeror will be able to successful-ly perform the required transition efforts.

Moderate Risk

Based on evaluation of the Offeror’s Transition Plan, there are concerns as to whether the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required transition efforts.

High Risk

Based on evaluation of the Offeror’s Transition Plan, there is substantial doubt as to whether the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required transition efforts.

M.6.6 Volume V -- Offer and Other Documents

M.6.6.1 Part A – Master Table of Contents

Master Table of Contents is required and must be clearly logical and understandable.

M.6.6.2 Part B – Solicitation, Offer & Award form, SF-33

Model Contract: The Contractor’s Offer will be reviewed for compliance with instructions. If FAA effects an award without communications, the signed copy of the Model Contract, Sections A through K will represent the successful Offeror’s proposed contract.

M.6.6.3 Part C – Completed SIR Section K

Completed SIR Section K is required and will be reviewed in accordance with the applicable FAA Acquisition Management requirements.

M.6.6.4 Part D – Business and Financial Capacity Documentation

Business and Financial Capacity Documentation is required and will be used by the FAA to evaluate whether an Offeror is “responsible” pursuant to FAA Acquisition Management System Policy 3.2.2.7.

M.6.6.5 Part E – Organizational Conflict of Interest Documentation

Organizational Conflict of Interest Documentation is required as appropriate and will be re-viewed by the FAA in accordance with FAA AMS Clauses 3.1.7-2, Organizational Conflicts of Interest, and 3.1.7-4. Companies on the list in Section L.2.9 must have a Mitigation Plan ap-proved by the Contracting Officer to be considered for award.

M.6.6.6 Part F – Earned Value Management System Certification or Plan

Earned Value Management System documentation will be reviewed in accordance with AMS Clauses 1.13-1, Notice of Earned Value Management System, and 1.13-2, Earned Value Man-agement System.

Failure to submit a current ANSI/EIA 748 compliance certification, or an acceptable EVMS compliance plan, may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award.

M.6.6.7 Part G – Master List of Exceptions, Deviations and Assumptions

The FAA reserves the right to reject any exception, deviation or assumption. The FAA reserves the right to deem a statement that contradicts a SIR requirement an exception, whether or not the offeror identifies it as such.

M.6.6.8 Part H – Small Business Subcontracting

The Subcontracting plan will be evaluated against the Small, Small Disadvantaged, Women- Owned and Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business goals identified in Section H.13.

The evaluation will consider the probability that the established subcontracting goals can be achieved.

Failure to submit an acceptable subcontracting plan or correct deficiencies within the specified time identified by the Contracting Officer may make the Offeror ineligible for award.

The mentor protégé plan will be rated acceptable or unacceptable in accordance with Table M.4 below.

This evaluation is not applicable to small businesses; therefore, all small and small disadvan-taged businesses will receive an acceptable rating.

Table M.4 Mentor – Protégé Program Rating Definitions

Acceptable

The Offeror has proposed an acceptable level of participation in the program and an acceptable level of developmental assistance to be provided to a protégé firm or firms with an approach which reflects a high probability of achieving established goals during the life of the contract.

Unacceptable

The Offeror failed to propose an acceptable level of participation in the program and/or an acceptable level of developmental assistance to be provided to a pro-tégé firm or firms with an approach which reflects a little probability of achiev-ing established goals during the life of the contract .

End of Section M