Revised RRCIU SIR Section M.pdf

PART IV – SECTION M–SIR #: DTFAWA-16-R-00016

PART I – SECTION M Page 1

M.1 3.1-1 CLAUSES AND PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (JULY 2011)

This contract, as applicable, incorporates by referencing 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:

http://www.asu.faa.gov/conwrite/ (on this web page, select "Search and View Clauses").

3.2.4-31 Evaluation of Options (April 1996)

3.3.1-30 Progress Payments Not Included (November 1997)

M.2 BASIS FOR AWARD

a. The FAA intends to award one contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to the requirements and terms and conditions, and is considered to be lowest priced, technically acceptable proposal. In order to be considered technically acceptable, the proposal must be acceptable in all factors and sub-factors.

b. To be eligible for award, Offerors must be determined to be responsible In Accordance With (IAW) Section L.11, Contractor Responsibility.

M.3 EVALUATION PROCESS

The FAA Evaluation Team will assess the Offerors’ written responses against the evaluation factors contained in Sections M.3. The FAA will ensure the proposals are evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using the non-cost/price factors. Offerors are cautioned not to minimize the importance of an adequate response in any area because of importance or visibility. While the Government evaluation team and the Source Selection Official will strive for maximum objectivity, the selection process by its nature is subjective and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

Offerors must furnish adequate and specific information in their response in accordance with Section L.

Offerors shall meet all SIR requirements, terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements, and identified factors and subfactors, to be eligible for award. The Offerors’ proposal will be eliminated from further consideration before the evaluation if the proposal is determined non-compliant with the terms and conditions of the SIR.

Offerors’ responses must provide insight into their understanding of the requirements, the approach and general procedures that the Offerors propose to use to meet these requirements and any inherent problems associated with performing this contract. The Offerors’ proposal must be sufficiently detailed, specific and complete to enable the FAA to thoroughly evaluate it to determine whether the specified requirements are met without discussion with the Offeror. Simply stating that the Offeror understands and will comply with the specifications (or paraphrasing the specifications) is inadequate. Likewise, phrases such as: “Standard procedures will be employed” and “Well-known techniques will be used” are also unacceptable.

A proposal that is unrealistic in terms of technical content, schedule commitments, or price will be deemed to be reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence or indicative of a failure to comprehend the technical complexity and risks of the contractual requirements, and may be grounds for determining that a proposal may no longer be considered for contract award. In the event the Offerors’ proposal is rejected, a notice will be sent to the Offeror stating the reason(s) that the proposal will not be considered for further evaluation.

In evaluating the offers, the Government may conduct written or oral communications with any and/or all Offerors, and reserves the right to reduce the participants in the competition to only those Offerors most likely to receive award. The Government reserves the right to conduct communications and negotiations with any individual competing Offeror, or all competing Offerors, as the situation may warrant.

PART I – SECTION M Page 2

Communications with one or more Offerors will not require the Government to conduct communications with all Offerors. If communications are necessary with one or more Offerors, the Government reserves the right to request revised offers.

M.4 EVALUATION FACTORS

M.4.1 Factor 1 – Past Performance

Past performance is a measure of how well the Offerors have performed work similar in size, scope and complexity to the required in this solicitation. The FAA will evaluate each Offeror's Past Performance to verify that the Offeror has the prerequisite capabilities to perform satisfactorily under the proposed contract. The FAA will evaluate the Offerors’ past performance—as well as the past performance of any first-tier subcontractors—on projects of similar size, scope and complexity. At a minimum, an Offeror's track record regarding quality of work, timeliness of performance, customer satisfaction, cost and schedule performance, and contract administration skills will be assessed using the information provided in accordance with Section L.11, Proposal Contents, Section 1 (Evaluation Factor 1 – Past Performance) of this SIR. Also, the FAA may consider input received from other sources familiar with the work ethic and standards of Offerors. Accordingly, the FAA may contact any or all of the references in the Offerors’ proposal— as well as other sources—as part of the evaluation. Past Performance will receive one of the ratings below:

Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s past performance, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. The Offeror’s past performance questionnaire ratings have scores greater than 3, AND, each of the offeror’s past performance questionnaires cannot have more than four rating scores of 4.

Unacceptable Based on the Offeror’s past performance, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. The Offeror’s past performance questionnaires show ratings scores which are lower than 4 for any rated question AND one or more questionnaires exceed the acceptable number of allowable 4 ratings.

M.4.2 Factor 2 – Capability/Capacity to Accomplish this Work

Using the information provided in Section L.11, Proposal Contents, Section 2 (Evaluation Factor 2- Capability/Capacity to Accomplish this Work), to be considered technically acceptable, the Offer must receive a rating of Acceptable in each sub-factor below. The following Factors will be used to evaluate the Offeror’s capability/capacity to accomplish this work.

M.4.2.1 Sub-Factor 1 – Program Management Plan

The Offeror must demonstrate how their program management plan meets the contract requirements.

This must include:

1. Management Organization - Present a company organizational chart(s) and sufficient supplemental narrative to fully describe all organizational levels, plans, relationships and activities. This chart must be hierarchical in nature and must clearly delineate all major area functional responsibilities and management positions.

PART I – SECTION M Page 3

2. Policies and Procedures – Describe existing internal policies and procedures to be used in managing the contract.

3. Contractor Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) - The CWBS must include all activities related to the first production unit of the Remote Radio Control Interface Unit (RRCIU).

The CWBS must identify all subcontracted elements or tasks and must include a CWBS dictionary that describes the efforts, tasks, tests, components, etc., that are included in the CWBS element by the Offeror.

4. Network Logic Schedule - Present a baseline schedule related to the first production unit of the RRCIU and processes for control of the schedule.

5. Resource Planning - Provide a detailed description of how the Offeror will allocate and plan resources to meet the delivery requirements of the project. Discuss any resource planning tools used for this purpose.

6. Risk Management - Describe the internal approach and method for the identification, assessment, mitigation, and communication of program risks. This approach should include provision for identifying risk areas, assessing risk factors, assigning appropriate resources to reduce risk factors, identifying and analyzing alternative actions available, identifying the most promising alternatives, and planning for implementation of risk reduction. Describe your risk management communication approach to notify the government when management indicators (metrics) show a deviation of 3% or greater between planned and actual indicators.

7. Data Management - Describe the organization, procedures, and tools to be used to ensure that all data deliverables required by the contract are made in a timely manner.

The sub-factor will receive one of the ratings below:

Acceptable The Offeror’s Program Management Plan demonstrates a thorough understanding of the full range of requirements. To be acceptable, six or more areas of the sub-factor must adequately address all required information and format requirements. All areas must be addressed.

Unacceptable The Offeror’s Program Management Plan is inadequate and does not demonstrate an acceptable understanding of the requirements. To be unacceptable, two or more areas of the sub-factor do not adequately address all required information and format requirements.

M.4.2.2 Sub-Factor 2 – Key Personnel

The Offeror must provide experienced and qualified personnel who are able to support the requirements of the contract. Resumes for key personnel shall include education and years of relevant experience.

Each person specified by the Offeror must be available, must be full-time, and must be employed by the Offeror at the time of contemplated contract start date. Each resume must not exceed two pages.

The sub-factors will receive one of the ratings below:

PART I – SECTION M Page 4

Acceptable The Offeror’s resumes are comprehensive and demonstrate a thorough understanding of the full range of requirements. The years of experience relevant to the SOW must be as follows:

Program Manager (7 years)

Project Engineer (5 years)

Configuration Manager (5 years)

Quality Assurance Manager (5 years)

Unacceptable The Offeror’s resumes do not met the minimum experience levels relevant to the requirements of the SOW.

M.4.2.3 Sub-Factor 3 – Quality Assurance

The Offeror must provide a Quality System Plan (QSP). The QSP must ensure compliance with the requirements of this contract. The QSP must include complete coverage of all of the information, instructions and documentation necessary to produce a quality part, component, equipment, subsystem, or system.

Acceptable The Offeror’s quality system plan is comprehensive and demonstrates a thorough understanding of the full range of requirements.

Unacceptable The Offeror’s quality system plan is inadequate and does not demonstrate an acceptable understanding of the requirements.

M.4.3 Factor 3 – Technical Approach

Using the information provided in Section L.11, Proposal Contents, Section 3 (Evaluation Factor 3- Technical Approach), to be considered technically acceptable, the Offer must receive a rating of Acceptable in each sub-factor below. The following sub-factors will be used to evaluate the Offeror’s Technical Proposal.

M.4.3.1 Sub-Factor 1 – Manufacturing

Manufacturing - The Offeror must demonstrate capabilities of manufacturing RRCIUs in compliance with FAA-E-2663a on schedule. The Offeror must discuss the facilities, equipment, and production capabilities to produce and deliver 15 RRCIUs and 26 RRCIU Kits per month. The Offeror must discuss their capability to have a fully operational production line capable of producing RRCIUs within 3 months after contract award.

PART I – SECTION M Page 5

Acceptable The Offeror’s Manufacturing submission is comprehensive and demonstrates a thorough understanding of the full range of requirements.

To be acceptable, the Offeror must address all required information to show that the offeror understands the requirement and has acceptable manufacturing facilities and sufficient, .

Unacceptable The Offeror’s Manufacturing submission does not demonstrate an acceptable understanding of the requirements. Offeror’s Manufacturing is deficient in several areas and does not address all requirements.

M.4.3.2 Sub-Factor 2 – Testing

Testing - The Offeror must demonstrate their capability to conduct production acceptance test IAW FAA-e-2663a. The Offeror must discuss the equipment and testing capabilities, procedures, personnel, timelines, locations, and outcomes.

Acceptable The Offeror’s Testing technical proposal submission is comprehensive and demonstrates a thorough understanding of the full range of requirements.

To be acceptable, the Offeror must adequately address all test requirements detailed in the production acceptance test IAW with FAA e- 2663a.

Unacceptable The Offeror’s Testing technical proposal submission does not demonstrate an acceptable understanding of the requirements. Offeror’s submission does not adequately and sufficiently address testing in terms of capability or process per the required detail.

M.4.3.3 Sub-Factor 3 – Engineering Support

Engineering Support – The Offeror must demonstrate their ability to provide engineering support services that include but are not limited to system and equipment maintenance and engineering, testing, product improvement, and developing documentation such as Technical Data Package (TDP).

The sub-factor will receive one of the ratings below:

Acceptable The Offeror’s Engineering Support submission is comprehensive and demonstrates a thorough understanding of the full range of requirements.

To be acceptable, the Offeror must adequately address all required information.

Unacceptable The Offeror’s Engineering Support submission is inadequate and does not

PART I – SECTION M Page 6 demonstrate an acceptable understanding of the requirements. Offeror’s Engineering Support is deficient in several areas and does not address all requirements.

M.4.4 Factor 4: Cost/Price

The FAA will perform a price analysis to determine if the proposed price is fair and reasonable using the information provided in Section L.11, Proposal Contents, Section 4 (Pricing). A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be charged in the conduct of competitive business. Proposals containing unbalanced or unrealistic pricing may be rejected. Proposing uncompensated overtime is not authorized.