DTFAWA-16-R-00015_Section M_Amendment_2 final.pdf

DTFAWA-16-R-00015

PART IV – REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 AMS 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 contractors may obtain the full text via Internet at:

http://conwrite.faa.gov.

Clause Title

3.2.2.3-34 Evaluating Offers for Multiple Award (July 2004) 3.2.4-31 Evaluation of Options (April 1996) 3.6.1-10 Evaluation of Contractor Participation in the FAA Mentor Protégé

Program (January 1999)

M.2 GENERAL

Each proposal submitted in response to this solicitation will be evaluated by a team of qualified personnel who will evaluate all information furnished by the Offerors, including proposals, responses to questions, and revised proposals, if any. This evaluation will address the following:

1) Technical Approach, including Oral Presentations (Volume I);

2) Management Approach (Volume II);

3) Price (Volume III);

4) Past Performance (Volume IV);

5) Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Volume V) (not applicable for Small Business Offerors); and

6) Miscellaneous (Volume VI).

Proposals that fail to meet the requirements of the solicitation or are unrealistic in terms of technical content or schedule commitments may be deemed reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence or indicative of a failure to comprehend the technical complexity and risks of the contract requirements; the Government therefore reserves the right to determine such proposals to be ineligible for further evaluation and for contract award. The Government also reserves the right to (i) reject any and all offers, (ii) waive any requirement, and (iii) accept minor irregularities and discrepancies if doing so is determined to be in the best interest of the FAA.

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

M-1 award. Any Offeror eliminated from further consideration will be notified in writing by the CO.

In evaluating the proposals, the FAA may conduct written or oral communications with any or all Offerors. The FAA reserves the right to conduct communications and negotiations with any individual Offeror or all competing Offerors. Communications with one or more Offerors do not require discussions with other Offerors.

Alternate proposals are not authorized to be submitted in response to this SIR and will not be evaluated. Therefore, any exception to any of the terms and conditions of the SIR may make the offer unacceptable. The Government reserves the right to award a contract from the initial submissions without communications; Offerors are therefore cautioned to submit their best Offerors with the initial proposals and to consult with the CO before submitting any offer that takes exception to any term or condition of this SIR. However, the FAA also reserves the right to conduct Offeror-specific communications or to permit Offerors to revise their proposals. The FAA reserves the right to reject any exception.

M.3 BASIS FOR AWARD

a) This acquisition is being conducted in accordance with the FAA’s Acquisition

Management System (AMS) and will utilize a best-value approach for selecting an Offeror for award. Under the best-value approach, the Government assesses non-price and price factors based on the evaluation criteria in this section and their relative order of importance and selects the Offerors proposing the combinations of non-price and price factors representing the best value to the Government. This approach provides the opportunity for a trade-off between non-price and price factors and does not require that awards be made to either the Offerors submitting the highest-rated technical proposals or the Offerors submitting the lowest prices.

b) The FAA anticipates two (2) contract awards resulting from this SIR: one (1) unrestricted full-and-open competitive award and one (1) Small Business set-aside competitive award. The FAA intends to make approximately 25% of the total EPICS requirement (based on dollar value) available under the contract resulting from the Small Business set-aside award. The FAA reserves the right to award a single contract or more than two contracts or not to make an award.

c) Prior to the award of any contract, the Government will determine the prospective Contractor to be responsible in accordance with AMS 3.2.2.2. To assist in this determination, the Government reserves the right to conduct a pre-award survey of any Offeror or Offeror’s subcontractor. A pre-award survey does not necessarily mean that an Offeror has been selected for award.

M-2

M.4 EVALUATION ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

a) Volume I (Technical Approach) is significantly more important than Volume II

(Management Approach). Volume I (Technical Approach) is also significantly more important than Volume IV (Past Performance). Volume II and Volume IV are of equal importance.

1) Within Volume I, Factor 2 (Problem Statement Responses) is significantly more important than Factor 1 (Team Qualifications).

a. Within Factor 1, Sub-factors 1.1 through 1.3 are in descending order of importance, with Sub-factor 1.1 being more important than Sub-factor 1.2 and Sub-factor 1.2 being more important than Sub-factor 1.3.

b. Within Factor 2, Sub-factors 2.1 through 2.4 are equally important.

2) Within Volume 1, the technical rating is more important than the risk rating.

b) Within Volume II (Management Approach), Factors 1 through 5 are in descending order of importance; Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2, which is more important than Factor 3, which is more important than Factor 4, which is more important than Factor 5. Within Volume II, the management rating is more important than the risk rating.

c) Within Volume IV (Past Performance), Factors 1 and 2 are threshold factors and of equal importance. For a past-performance reference to be evaluated, the Government must determine it to be Acceptable under Factors 1 and 2. For past-performance references meeting those criteria, Factors 3 through 7 are equally important and are used to assign the volume-level rating.

d) The non-price volumes (I, II, and IV) collectively are significantly more important than Volume III (Price). As the differences among Offerors in the non-price evaluation decrease, importance of the Volume III evaluation increases.

e) The Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Volume V) evaluation is used to establish the Offeror’s commitment to the participation of small businesses in the EPICS contract; it is not factored into the best-value trade-off. Volume V will not be evaluated for small businesses. Volume VI (Miscellaneous) will be used by the CO as part of his/her responsibility determination. Volume VI is not factored into the best-value trade-off.

f) The evaluation order of importance among Volumes I, II, and IV and among the factors and sub-factors within those volumes is depicted in Figure M-1.

M-3

Volume I (Technical Approach)

Volume II (Management Approach)

Volume IV (Past Performance)

Significantly More Important

Than

Are of Equal Importance

Factor 2 Problem Statement

Responses

Factor 1 Team Qualifications

Significantly More Important

Than

Subfactors are of equal Importance

Factor 1 - Program Management Factor 2 - Staffing and Recruitment Factor 3 - Task Order Mgt Factor 4 - Subcontract Mgt Factor 5 - Transition Approach

Subfactor 2.1- Response to Problem Statement 1 Subfactor 2.2 - Response to Problem Statement 2 Subfactor 2.3 - Response to Problem Statement 3 Subfactor 2.4 - Response to Problem Statement 4

Subfactor 1.1 - Knowledge of FAA Operating Environment Subfactor 1.2 - Team Capabilities and Experience Subfactor 1.3 - Key Personnel

Factor 1 - Relevance Factor 2 - Recency Factor 3 - Quality of Service Factor 4 - Timeliness of Performance Factor 5 - Cost Control Factor 6 - Program Management Factor 7 - Customer Relationships

Factors are of equal Importance

Subfactors are in descending order of importance

Factors are in descending order of importance

Figure M-1. Order of Importance for Volumes I, II, and IV

g) The evaluation order of importance between the non-price volumes and the Price Volume for the best-value trade-off is depicted in Figure M-2

Non-Price Volumes (I, II, and IV)

Volume III (Price)

Significantly More Important

Than

Figure M-2. Order of Importance for Non-Price Volumes and the Price Volume

M.5 EVALUATION APPROACH

Volumes I and II will be evaluated using the factors and sub-factors listed in this section.

The Government will identify strengths, weaknesses, and risks relative to the factors and sub-factors. The definitions of strength, weakness, and risk are listed below in Table M-1. Based upon the strengths and weaknesses identified, the Government will assign an adjectival rating from Table M-2 to each sub-factor and factor. For those factors that have sub-factors, the sub-factor ratings will be used to determine the factor ratings.

M-4

Table M-1. Definitions of Strength, Weakness, and Risk

Strength

An aspect of a proposal that would positively impact performance of the resulting contract, 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.

Risk An aspect a proposal that presents an uncertainty as to the ability of the Offeror successfully to perform the required effort or the proposed approach.

Additionally, an overall adjectival rating from Table M-2 will be assigned to each of Volumes I and II.

Table M-2. Definitions of the Technical and Management Adjectival Ratings

Rating Description Excellent The Offeror’s response comprehensively addresses the contractual requirements. 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. The combined impact of any strengths is approximately equal to the combined impact of any weaknesses.

Marginal The Offeror’s response does not adequately address the contractual requirements. The combined impact of the weaknesses outweighs the combined impact of any strengths.

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

Based upon the risks identified at the sub-factor and factor levels, the Government will also assign a volume-level risk rating to each of Volumes I and II using the risk definitions in Table M-3. The risk ratings will be based on the impact of risks identified at the factor and sub-factor levels within each volume. Risk ratings of each Offeror will also be considered as part of the best-value trade-off. The Government will use professional judgment in assigning ratings.

M-5

Table M-3. Definitions of the Technical and Management Risk Ratings

Rating Definition High Risk The Offeror’s response presents a high likelihood of performance, schedule, or cost issues that would jeopardize successful completion of the contractual requirements.

Moderate Risk The Offeror’s response presents a moderate likelihood of performance, schedule, or cost issues that would jeopardize successful completion of the contractual requirements.

Low Risk The Offeror’s response presents a low likelihood of performance, schedule, or cost issues that would jeopardize successful completion of the contractual requirements.

The Volume III (Price) evaluation includes the calculation of the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) by multiplying the proposed labor rates by the hours in the FAA Cost Model. As part of its price analysis, the Government will assess each Offeror’s price proposal for fairness and reasonableness, realism, and balance. This assessment will result in the assignment of an aggregate non-TEP volume level rating from Table M-4.

Table M-4. Rating Definitions for the Aggregate non-TEP Assessment

High Impact The potential impact of issues identified related to fairness and reasonableness, realism, and balance on contract performance and price is high.

Moderate Impact The potential impact of issues identified related to fairness and reasonableness, realism, and balance on contract performance and price is moderate.

Low Impact The potential impact of issues identified related to fairness and reasonableness, realism, and balance on contract performance and price is low.

Volume IV (Past Performance) will be assigned a confidence rating that represents an assessment of the likelihood of the Offeror’s successful performance under the EPICS contract based on its past performance.

Volume V (Small Business Subcontracting Plan) will be evaluated and assigned an adjectival rating per the definitions in Table M-5. Volume V is not required for small businesses. Volume V will not be considered in the best-value trade-off, but the Government reserves the right not to award a contract to any Offeror determined unacceptable under Volume V.

M-6

Table M-5. Definitions of Small Business Subcontracting Plan Adjectival Ratings

Acceptable The Offeror’s response demonstrates a viable Small Business

Subcontracting Plan that meets the specified subcontracting goals and the AMS Clause 3.6.1-4 content requirements.

Unacceptable The Offeror’s response does not demonstrate a viable Small Business Subcontracting Plan that meets the specified subcontracting goals and the AMS Clause 3.6.1-4 content requirements.

Volume VI (Miscellaneous) will not be rated. However, the Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Plan will be determined to be acceptable or unacceptable based on the Contracting Officer’s assessment of the proposed OCI mitigation strategy. The Government reserves the right not to award a contract to any Offeror determined to have an unacceptable OCI Plan.

Volume I – Technical Approach

The Government will evaluate Volume I of each Offeror’s proposal using the following factors and sub-factors, Factor 1 - Team Qualifications:

Sub-factor 1.1: Knowledge of FAA Operating Environment – The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the FAA, the National Airspace System, and FAA NextGen programs, including how CINP and Data Comm programs and initiatives contribute to achieving NextGen objectives and the issues and challenges associated with meeting those objectives.

Sub-factor 1.2: Team Capabilities and Experience – The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates that its team has the capability (demonstrated through a combination of proven methodologies, resources, tools, and relevant experience) of delivering the services required by section C.3, including the capability of providing appropriate staffing and experience in delivering the full range and scope of services, including experience on similar efforts and how such experience would be leveraged to reduce performance risk.

Sub-factor 1.3: Key Personnel – The degree to which the proposed key personnel have the potential to perform successfully the work required considering their education and specific experience relative to the required work.

M-7

Factor 2 – Responses to Sample Problems:

Sub-factor 2.1: Response to Problem Statement 1 Sub-factor 2.2: Response to Problem Statement 2 Sub-factor 2.3: Response to Problem Statement 3 Sub-factor 2.4: Response to Problem Statement 4

Each Problem-Statement Response consists of an oral presentation to the FAA with an accompanying written response. The combined response (written and oral) to each Problem Statement will be separately evaluated at the sub-factor level and assessed a single adjectival rating from Table M-2.

The Government will evaluate each problem-statement response using the following four criteria, all of which are of equal importance:

Problem Understanding – The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a complete understanding of the issues and challenges articulated in the problem statement.

Problem Decomposition – The degree to which the Offeror identifies key assumptions, relevant trade-offs and risks, and the basis for the assumptions.

Approach – The degree to which the Offeror defines a sound approach, identifies key activities, provides a clear implementation schedule, and demonstrates a feasible operational concept inherent in the approach.

Staffing – The degree to which the proposed staffing plan (including key and non-key personnel) is consistent with the problem-statement response and supports successful performance.

Volume II – Management Approach

The Government will evaluate Volume II of each Offerors’ proposal using the following factors.

Factor 1: Program Management

Degree to which the structure of the proposed organization (including the program-management office) has the potential to support successful contract performance, including the accessibility of corporate resources.

Degree to which the internal policies, practices, and procedures have the potential to promote effective contract management.

Degree to which the timeframes for implementing and applying management policies, practices, and procedures are realistic and reasonable.

M-8

Degree to which the cost-management approach has the potential to track cost expenditures effectively and to estimate reasonable and realistic TO costs.

Degree to which the approach to controlling costs, including program-management and TO-management costs, is sound and effective.

Degree to which the risk-management approach has the potential to identify, assess, and mitigate risks encountered during contract performance.

Degree to which the quality-assurance-management approach is clear, comprehensive, and effective.

Degree to which the proposed facilities and resources have the potential to ensure successful contract performance.

Factor 2: Staffing, Recruitment, and Workforce Development

Degree to which the staffing and recruitment approach has the potential to ensure staffing and retention of qualified personnel under this contract.

Degree to which the Professional Employee Compensation Plan required by AMS Clause 3.2.6.-15 reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the EPICS requirements and has to the potential to provide uninterrupted high-quality work. Degree to which the proposed professional compensation has the potential to impact recruiting and retention, is realistic, and is consistent with the total plan for compensation.

Degree to which the staffing and recruitment approach has the potential to ensure timely start-up of newly awarded task orders.

Degree to which the workforce-development program has the potential to ensure that EPICS technical staff stays current with evolving technologies, reference models, analysis techniques, etc. necessary to support the statement of work requirements.

Factor 3: Task-order Management

Degree to which the TO-management approach has the potential to ensure effective, efficient, and quality support.

Degree to which the start-up procedures for newly awarded TOs has the potential to ensure timely commencement of performance.

Degree to which the approach for managing and coordinating individual TOs has the potential to avoid duplication of effort, identify dependencies among TOs, and ensure consistency and accuracy among issued TOs.

M-9

Degree to which the approach and methodology for providing quality products and services on individual TOs has the potential to ensure the services delivered meet or exceed requirements.

Degree to which the approach has the potential to keep the Government informed of the status of individual TOs.

Factor 4: Subcontract Management

Degree to which the subcontract-management approach has the potential to ensure effective, efficient, and high-quality subcontractor performance.

Degree to which subcontractor roles on the contract, including the specific SOW areas assigned, are comprehensive and clear.

Degree to which the proposed approach to managing and monitoring subcontractor activities in a seamless TO environment is sound and effective.

Degree to which the subcontractor status reporting and invoicing processes and procedures are realistic and reasonable.

Degree to which the approach has the potential for maintaining effective communications between the prime and proposed subcontractors.

Degree to which the processes and procedures to enhance communications have the potential to reduce the likelihood of misunderstandings and expeditiously resolve problems between the prime and proposed subcontractors.

Degree to which the approach to select subcontractors for each task are reasonable and realistic.

Factor 5: Transition Approach

Degree to which the transition approach has the potential to ensure an effective and efficient transition from the concluding contract to full performance under the new contract.

Degree to which the sequence of activities from contract award through full implementation of contract performance is realistic and achievable and the identified actions it expects from the FAA during the transition are reasonable.

Degree to which the transition approach has the potential not to negatively impact CINP or Data Comm organizations during transition.

M-10

Degree to which of the plans to recruit the required number of fully qualified staff have the potential to do so in a timely manner during the transition period.

Degree to which the approach for knowledge transfer between itself (incoming Contractor) and the outgoing contractor that it would be replacing is realistic and achievable.

Degree to which the transition approach and its identification of risks and risk-mitigation strategies is realistic and achievable.

Degree to which the identified key transition activities, including activities by the FAA, and the propriety of their sequence and schedule are clear, realistic, and achievable.

Volume III – Price

The Government will evaluate both the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) and non-TEP aspects of each Offeror’s price proposal. The TEP evaluation will be based on the approach described below. The non-TEP evaluation will be based on an assessment of the proposal’s fairness and reasonableness, realism, and balance and will result in an aggregate non-TEP assessment rating from Table M-4. The TEP and the corresponding aggregate non-TEP assessment rating will be considered in the best-value trade-off analysis.

TEP Assessment – The Government will calculate a TEP for each Offeror for the entire period of performance, including all options, using the labor rates proposed in Attachment L-1. The Government will input these labor rates into a price model that includes estimated labor hours for the entire period of performance of the contract, including all options. The Government will calculate the TEP by multiplying the Offeror-proposed labor rates by the estimated hours in the cost model. The Government will not release the cost model to Offerors.

Non-TEP Assessment - The Government will perform price analysis of each Offeror’s proposed price. Price analysis is the process of examining and analyzing the proposed prices without evaluating their separate cost elements and proposed profit or fee. As part of its price analysis, the Government will assess each Offeror’s price proposal for fairness and reasonableness, realism, and balance.

Fairness and reasonableness reflects the degree to which the proposed price, in its nature and amount, does not exceed that that would be incurred by a prudent person conducting competitive business.

Balance reflects whether the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over-or understated relative to comparable line items. The assessment of balance will be based

M-11 upon comparison of the pricing for comparable line items within an Offeror’s price proposal within a labor category and across the contract period of performance.

Realism analysis is a process that focuses on the proposed price and performance risks, i.e.

the ability of the Offeror to perform the contract requirements for the proposed price.

If the Government cannot determine whether prices are fair and reasonable, balanced, and realistic from the price information submitted, the Government reserves the right to request other cost and pricing information and to conduct cost analysis.

Volume IV – Past Performance

The Government will evaluate Volume IV of each Offeror’s proposal using seven factors to assign a volume-level rating. The ratings of Factors 1 and 2 will be based on the information provided in Part A of Volume IV. The ratings of Factors 3 through 7 will be based on Part B of Volume IV, which will be submitted by each Offeror’s past-performance references.

The past-performance evaluation factors are as follows:

Factor 1 – Relevance The past performance is comparable to EPICS in terms of the functional scope and complexity and indicative of the Offeror’s capability, experience, and performance relative to the contract requirements.

Factor 2 – Recency The past performance is ongoing or was completed within five (5) years of the date of the proposal–submission deadline.

Factor 3 – Quality of Service Delivery The past performance demonstrates a record of consistently providing services that meet or exceed customers’ requirements.

Factor 4 – Timeliness of Performance The past performance demonstrates a record of achieving milestones and fulfilling contract requirements on time and meeting delivery schedules.

Factor 5 – Cost Control The past performance demonstrates a record of controlling cost and completing work within proposed prices or estimated costs.

Factor 6 – Program Management

M-12

The past performance demonstrates a successful record of managing programs, assessing performance, implementing corrective actions when performance shortfalls are identified, and supervising contractor personnel and their work efforts.

Factor 7 – Customer Relationship The past performance demonstrates a record of effectively communicating with customers; being proactive in responding to problems, issues, and client concerns; and acting in partnership with the customer to achieve program objectives.

A rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable will be assigned to each factor by the Government. For Factors 1 and 2, a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable will be assigned to each past-performance summary based on the recency and relevance of the submitted past-performance example. At least two of the past-performance references must be assessed as relevant and recent to obtain an Acceptable rating under Factors 1 and 2. If a past-performance submission is rated as Unacceptable under Factor 1 or Factor 2, it will be excluded from consideration for Factors 3 through 7. Factors 1 and 2 are used to identify which past performance surveys are considered in the evaluation of Factors 3 through 7; they are not used directly to determine the volume rating.

For Factors 3 through 7 a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable will be assigned based on the survey responses received for the past performance references that are rated Acceptable under Factors 1 or 2. To receive an Acceptable rating for Factors 3 through 7, the factor must be assessed as Satisfactory or above.

The number of past performance survey responses available for consideration by the Past Performance Evaluation Team for the evaluation of Factors 3-7 is defined as the total number of past-performance survey responses received by the Government for past-performance references that were rated as Acceptable under Factors 1 and 2. Based on the submission requirements defined in Section L.13.4, there can be up to six past-performance survey responses available for consideration.

If no more than two past-performance survey responses are available for consideration, the Offeror will receive a rating of Unacceptable for Factors 3-7. If more than two past-performance survey responses are available for consideration, the Offeror will receive an Acceptable rating for a factor if at least half the response ratings for that factor are Satisfactory or higher.

Based upon the ratings of Factors 3-7, the volume-level rating will be assigned based on the following criteria:

• No Unacceptable factor-level ratings received: High Confidence

• One or two Unacceptable factor-level ratings received: Sufficient Confidence

• More than two Unacceptable factor-level ratings received: Low Confidence

M-13

The Government reserves the right to contact directly the customer points of contact provided in Part A. In addition, the Government reserves the right to obtain additional past-performance information for any prime Offeror and any proposed subcontractors from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Dun & Bradstreet reports, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), previous contracts, and other sources as determined appropriate by the Government. Information from any or all of these sources may be considered in the evaluation of an Offeror’s past performance.

Volume V – Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Large Businesses Only) The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan as either Acceptable or Unacceptable using Table M-5.

The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan is fully compliant with FAA AMS clause 3.6.1-4 and meets the goals established in Section L.13.5 for each year of the contract

The Government does not require a Small Business Subcontracting Plan from small businesses responding to this SIR; therefore, any prime Offeror that is a small business will receive an Acceptable rating for this volume.

Volume VI – Miscellaneous Business and Financial Capability. The Offeror’s demonstrated business and financial capability. The FAA intends to evaluate the financial statements requested in Section L.13.6.1 as part of the responsibility determination by analyzing various financial ratios to ensure the financial capability of the Offeror.

Mentor-Protégé Program Participation. In accordance with AMS clause 3.6.1-10, the FAA will evaluate proposed participation in the FAA Mentor-Protégé Program to determine the extent of developmental assistance to be provided by mentor firms to protégé firms under the FAA Mentor-Protégé Program. Participation in the Mentor- Protégé Program will be used to establish an Offeror’s commitment to the FAA’s Mentor-Protégé Program.

Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI). The Contracting Officer will review and assess the OCI information provided to determine whether the Offeror (including proposed subcontractors) has any OCI and, if so, whether the Offeror has presented an acceptable plan for mitigating the OCI. If the Contracting Officer determines an Offeror to have an OCI that is not adequately mitigated, the Offeror may not be eligible for award.

M-14