SECTION M updated as of 11-30-2016.pdf

Screening for Information - DRAFT–SIR No. DTFAWA-16-R-00024

M-1 | P a g e S c r e e n i n g I n f o r m a t i o n R e q u e s t ( S I R ) S e c t i o n M

DTFAWA-16-R-00024

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.

The following contract clause or clauses pertinent to this section are hereby incorporated by reference:

AMS Clause No. Title and Date

3.2.4-29 Evaluation Exclusive of Options (April 1996) 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 board of qualified personnel who will evaluate all information furnished by the Offerors; including proposals, responses to questions (written), and revised proposals, if any. This evaluation will address the following:

1) Technical Volume (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)

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 reserve the right to eliminate the Offeror from further consideration for 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:

http://conwrite.faa.gov/

M-2 | P a g e S c r e e n i n g I n f o r m a t i o n R e q u e s t ( S I R ) S e c t i o n M

– Award a contract from the initial submissions without entering into discussions.

Offerors are cautioned to submit their best offer with the initial proposal.

– Make no award if such action is determined to be in the FAA’s best interest.

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. The Best Value Approach is a method of selecting the proposals based on identifying the offer representing the greatest value to the Government as determined by the combined outcomes of the individual volume ratings and their relative order of importance as defined in Section M.4.

This approach provides the opportunity for a technical/price trade-off and does not require that the awards be made to either the Offeror submitting the highest rated technical proposal or the Offeror submitting the lowest prices, although the ultimate award decision may be to either of these Offerors.

b) The FAA anticipates making a single award resulting from this SIR.

c) Prior to the award of any contract, the prospective Contractor must also be determined to be responsible in accordance with AMS 3.2.2.7. 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.

M.4 EVALUATION ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

The Government’s source selection decision will be based on the following six evaluation factors, listed in order of descending importance:

(1) Technical Qualifications (Volume I);

(2) Management Approach (Volume II);

(3) Past Performance (Volume IV);

(4) Small Business (SB) and Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) Participation (Volume V);

(5) Price (Volume III); (Not Rated) and

(6) Miscellaneous (Volume VI); (Not Rated)

The non-price factors are listed in descending order of importance. Any sub factors are of equal importance to each other. The non-price factors, when combined, are more important than price.

As the difference among Offerors in the non-price evaluation results decreases, the Price Proposal evaluation results become more important.

The Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Volume V) [Large Businesses Only] evaluation results are used to establish the Offeror’s commitment to the participation of Small Businesses in the NAVTAC contract; they are not factored into the Best Value trade-off. Volume VI (Miscellaneous) is not evaluated and so also has no bearing on the Best Value trade-off.

M.5 EVALUATION APPROACH

Volumes I and II will be evaluated on the factors and sub-factors listed in Section M.6.

Evaluators will identify strengths, weaknesses, and risks relative to the evaluation factors in

M-3 | P a g e S c r e e n i n g I n f o r m a t i o n R e q u e s t ( S I R ) S e c t i o n M

Section M.6. The definitions of “strength,” “weakness,” and “risk” are listed in Table M-1.

Based upon the strengths, weaknesses, and risks identified, evaluators will assign adjectival ratings to the associated sub-factor or factor. For those factors that have sub- factors, the sub-factor ratings will be used to determine the factor rating. Additionally, an overall adjectival rating from Table M.2 will be assigned to each of Volumes I and II. The evaluators will use professional judgment in assigning ratings.

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. The area that exceeds the requirements stated in the statement of work. Also may contain enhancing features that provide supply or service above and beyond what is called for that 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. A flaw that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance. A weakness is also an omission from the Offeror’s proposal that contributed to a deficiency in meeting the evaluation criteria or is otherwise a shortcoming of the proposal that has the potential to degrade contract performance. A weakness may be correctable through discussions and revisions.

Deficiency A material failure to meet the requirement or a combination of weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level. Deficiencies are fatal errors that can’t be corrected, without major revisions.

Risk An aspect of an Offeror's proposal that presents an uncertainty in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform in the areas of cost, price, technical approach, or schedule.

Clarification

Communication with an Offeror for the sole purpose of eliminating minor irregularities, ambiguities, inconsistencies, or apparent clerical mistakes in its offer Note: An ambiguity is a situation in which something can be understood in more than one way and it is not clear which meaning is intended.

Omission Information requested in the SIR that was not provided in the proposal. An omission is not necessarily a deficiency if is not material in nature and the intent of the Offeror can be readily determined.

The scope of 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.

Proposals will be evaluated as described in M.6.3.

Volume IV (Past Performance) volume will be assigned an adjectival rating per the definitions in Table M-3 that represents an assessment of the likelihood of the Offeror’s successful performance under the NAVTAC contract based on its past performance.

Volume V (Small Business Subcontracting Plan) [Large Businesses Only] will be evaluated on the Offeror’s strategy for utilizing Small, Small Disadvantaged, Women- Owned and Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business concerns as well as its consistency with the

M-4 | P a g e S c r e e n i n g I n f o r m a t i o n R e q u e s t ( S I R ) S e c t i o n M

Offeror’s proposed Small Business Subcontract Management Approach. An adjectival rating per the definitions in Table M-4 will be assigned to each Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Volume V is not factored into the Best Value Trade-off, however; award may not be made to any Offeror determined to have an unacceptable Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Volume VI (Miscellaneous) will not be rated. However, the Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Plan will be determined to be acceptable or unacceptable. Award will not be made to any Offeror determined to have an unacceptable OCI Plan.

M.6 EVALUATION FACTORS

M.6.1 Volume I - Technical Qualifications (Factor 1)

The evaluation of Volume I, Technical Qualifications, will be conducted in accordance with this section. Volume I consists of two Parts (Part A – Team Qualifications and Part B – Task Order Proposals) which combined have a total of four subfactors as reflected below that will be rated adjectivally against the individual evaluation criteria associated with each subfactor as defined.

The output of the Technical Qualifications evaluation will be a single adjectival rating for each Offeror with respect to Volume I. There are five (5) adjectival ratings: Excellent, Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, and Unsatisfactory. The definitions for the adjectival ratings are provided in Table M-2.

M.6.1.1 Team Qualifications (Volume I – Part A) The individual evaluation criteria associated with each sub-factor related to Team Qualifications are defined below:

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. Degree to which the Offeror demonstrates an understanding of how Navigation Programs Group and Performance Based Navigation Offices 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 their team has the capability (through a combination of proven methodologies, resources, tools, and relevant experience) to deliver the services required by each functional task area of SOW Section C.3. The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates their capability to provide staffing for the functional areas in the SOW. The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates their ability to deliver the the full range and scope of services required by the SOW.

The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates the extent to which members of the Offeror’s team have previously collaborated on similar efforts and highlight how such previous efforts will be leveraged to reduce performance risk. Degree to which the experience cited is on projects of similar size, scope, and complexity and has been obtained within the last seven years.

Sub-factor 1.3: Key Personnel – The degree to which the qualifications of the proposed key personnel are relevant to and demonstrate the potential for performing the work required of the SIR. Degree to which the proposed key personnel have specific experience relative to the SOW areas. Degree to which the proposed NAVTAC Program Manager’s experience and education as articulated on their resume demonstrates the potential to manage the NAVTAC contract. Degree

M-5 | P a g e S c r e e n i n g I n f o r m a t i o n R e q u e s t ( S I R ) S e c t i o n M to which the key personnel are available on a full time basis for the first 12 months of the contract and/or assigned task order.

M.6.1.2 Task Order Proposals (Volume I- Part B)

The individual evaluation criteria associated with each sub-factor related to Task Order Proposals are defined below:

Sub-factor 1.4: Task Order Proposals The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to perform the Statements of Work provided as attachments J6A-J6D to the SIR. The Task Order includes a collection of current requirements under the resultant contract. The Government will evaluate the Task Order Proposals to assess the Offeror’s technical understanding of the task requirements and proposed approach to managing the effort. In conducting the evaluation, the Government will be seeking to determine the overall extent to which the Offeror fully understands the technical requirements of the tasks and demonstrates a capability to quickly, effectively, and efficiently perform the tasks described.

The contractor’s response to the Task Order is set forth in Section G.5. All assumptions, conditions, qualifications, and exceptions to the terms and conditions must be explicitly stated in the proposal and may be evaluated in terms of demonstrating the Offeror’s technical understanding of the requirement and capability to perform. The evaluation of the Task Order Proposals will be based on the Government’s overall assessment of its strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies.

M.6.2 Volume II - Management Approach (Factor 2)

The evaluation of the Management Approach proposals will be conducted in accordance with this section. The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the proposed management approach to include the Project Management Plan (PMP) provides confidence that the Offeror will effectively and efficiently plan, execute, monitor, and control its efforts and the efforts of all subcontractors to meet program requirements. There are five subfactors as reflected below that will be rated adjectivally against the individual evaluation criteria associated with each subfactor.

The output of the Management Approach evaluation will be a single adjectival rating for each Offeror with respect to Volume II. There are five (5) adjectival ratings: Excellent, Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, and Unsatisfactory. The definitions for the adjectival ratings are provided in Table M-2. The individual evaluation criteria associated with each sub-factor are defined below:

Sub-factor 2.1: Program Management Degree to which the Offeror’s proposed program management organization (including roles and responsibilities of its members) is structured, its proximity to FAA HQ’s, and its approach to effective contract management and communication with the Government.

Degree to how the Offeror’s proposed program management organization has accessibility to corporate resources and its interaction with proposed major subcontractors.

Degree to which the Offeror’s internal policies, practices, and procedures promote effective management of NAVTAC contract activities.

M-6 | P a g e S c r e e n i n g I n f o r m a t i o n R e q u e s t ( S I R ) S e c t i o n M

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

Degree to which the Offeror’s proposed monitoring and controlling cost approach ensures both tracking of cost expenditures, as well as reasonable TO cost estimates.

Degree to which the Offeror proposes a sound and effective approach to controlling Program Management and Task Order Management costs.

Degree to which the Offeror’s proposed risk management approach is expected to identify, assess, and mitigate risks encountered during contract performance.

Degree to which the Offerors’s proposed approach to quality assurance management is comprehensive, well defined, and ensures that the services furnished under the contract will meet or exceed contract requirements.

Degree to which the Offeror’s proposed facilities and resources are expected to ensure successful performance of the NAVTAC contract.

Sub-factor 2.2: Staffing, Recruitment, and Workforce Development Degree to which the Offeror’s proposed Staffing and Recruitment approach ensures recruitment and retention of qualified personnel.

Degree to which the Offeror’s proposed staffing and recruitment approach ensures timely start-up of newly awarded task orders.

Degree to which the Offeror has a well-defined workforce development program that ensures the NAVTAC technical staff stays current with evolving technologies, reference models, analysis techniques, etc.

Degree to which the Offeror’s total compensation plan provides a methodology that ensures adequate compensation to recruit and retain qualified personnel.

Sub-factor 2.3: Task Order Management Degree to which the Offeror’s proposed TO management approach ensures effective, efficient, and quality support.

Degree to which the Offeror’s proposed start up procedures for newly awarded TOs ensures timely commencement of performance.

Degree to which the Offeror’s proposed approach for managing and coordinating individual TOs avoids duplication of effort, identifies dependencies between TOs and ensures consistency and accuracy amongst issued TOs.

Degree to which the Offeror’s proposed approach and methodology for providing quality products and services on individual TOs ensures the services delivered meet or exceed requirements.

Degree to which the Offeror’s proposed approach keeps the Government informed of the status of individual task orders.

M-7 | P a g e S c r e e n i n g I n f o r m a t i o n R e q u e s t ( S I R ) S e c t i o n M

Sub-factor 2.4: Subcontract Management Degree to which the Offeror’s proposed subcontract management approach ensures effective, efficient, and quality subcontractor performance.

Degree to which the Offeror identifies how subcontractors will be utilized to perform specific SOW areas.

Degree to which the Offeror’s proposed subcontractor status-reporting and subcontractor invoicing processes and procedures are reasonable.

Degree to which the Offeror’s proposed processes and procedures establish effective communications and resolve problems and disputes between itself and the proposed subcontractors.

Degree to which the Offeror’s methodology for selecting subcontractors for task orders is reasonable.

Sub-factor 2.5: Transition Approach Degree to which the Offeror’s proposed transition approach is expected to ensure an effective and efficient transition from the concluding contract/contractor to full performance under the new contract.

Degree to which the Offeror’s proposed transition approach is realistic, achievable and identifies risks and their mitigation strategies.

Degree to which the Offeror’s proposed transition approach ensures knowledge transfer between the outgoing contractor and itself

Degree to which the key transition activities are identified and properly sequenced and scheduled and the FAA-required activities are clearly identified.

Degree to which the proposed transition approach mitigates transition risks so as not to negatively impact the Navigation Programs Group and Performance Based Navigation Offices.

M.6.3 Volume III – Price

The evaluation of Volume III, Price, will be conducted in accordance with this section. Volume III consists of two Parts (Part A – Price Proposal Bid Model and Part B – Task Order Cost Proposal Bid Model).

The FAA will evaluate Volume III Part A and B for reasonableness in accordance with AMS Policy Section 3.2.3.2 and AMS Policy and Procurement Guidance Section T3.2.3 (A) (1) (c). A cost/price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

The FAA will review Volume III Part A and B to determine whether it includes all required pricing information, pricing details align with summary pricing tables, prices are consistent with described pricing methodology and are traceable to the requirements set forth in Section L.6.2.3.2 and L.6.2.3.4. Completeness shall be determined based on the information requested in Section

M-8 | P a g e S c r e e n i n g I n f o r m a t i o n R e q u e s t ( S I R ) S e c t i o n M

L.6.2.3. The FAA at its sole discretion might require additional information or reject proposals lacking completeness, consistency or traceability.

The FAA reserves the right to perform price realism in accordance with AMS Guidance T.3.2.3.

The FAA reserves the right to conduct cost analysis on base labor rates if deemed necessary to support the price realism analysis. This may require the FAA to request additional information to be obtained from the Offerors.

M.6.3.1 – Price Proposal Bid Evaluation

The Price Proposal Bid will be evaluated, but not ranked or scored. In evaluating the Price Proposal Bid, the FAA will use a Total Evaluated Price (TEP), which includes the base and all option periods. The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be the sum of:

1) The proposed fully- burdened government site labor rates for each category multiplied by the historical hours for each labor category provided by the FAA in Attachment J-7.

(Please note that for labor categories in Attachment J-7.1 without hours, those rates will be reviewed for reasonableness and realism but will not be included as part of the TEP); and

2) CLINs with FAA provided Not-to-Exceed (NTE) amounts.

The evaluation of options does not obligate the FAA to exercise the option(s).

Offerors should identify any blending of subcontract rates with its own rates to arrive at the proposed hourly rate. The subcontract rates should be traceable back to the subcontractor proposals, if submitted.

M.6.3.2 – Task Order Cost Proposal Bid Evaluation

Task order price proposals will only be evaluated for reasonableness . The task order price evaluation is not included in the TEP and may not be used as part of the best value determination.

M.6.4 Volume IV - Past Performance (Factor 4)

Past performance is a measure of how well the Offerors have performed work similar in size, scope and complexity to this solicitation within the last seven years of the date of proposal submission . 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 major 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 control, program management, and customer relationships will be assessed using the information provided in accordance with Section L.6.2.4 Past Performance (Volume IV) 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.

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 the Offeror (prime and any proposed subcontractors) from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Dun & Bradstreet reports, Defense

M-9 | P a g e S c r e e n i n g I n f o r m a t i o n R e q u e s t ( S I R ) S e c t i o n M

Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), previous contracts, and other sources as required. Information from any or all of these sources may be considered in the evaluation of the Offeror’s past performance.

An overall adjectival rating from Table M.3 will be assigned to Volume IV. The evaluators will use professional judgment in assigning ratings. For Past Performance Summaries, a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable will be assigned to each past performance summary based on the recent experience and relevancy of the submitted past performance summary. At least two of the past performance summaries must be assessed as relevant and recent to obtain an Acceptable rating . If a past-performance summary is rated as Unacceptable, it will be excluded from consideration.

For Past Performance Questionnaires a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable will be assigned based on the questionnaire responses received for the past performance references. At least two Past Performance Questionnaire’s must be submitted by the prime and at least one from each major subcontractor (as defined in L.6.2.4) but the total of Past Performance Questionnaire’s submitted to the FAA shall not exceed a total of ten submissions combined. The Offeror will receive an Acceptable rating for the Past Performance Questionnaires if at least half the response ratings for the questions are Satisfactory or higher. The number of past performance questionnaire responses available for consideration shall be no less than three from the Offeror.

In order to receive an Acceptable rating for Volume IV, the Past Performance Summaries and Questionnaires combined need to receive an Acceptable rating.

M.6.5 Volume V - Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Large Businesses Only) (Factor 5)

The FAA will evaluate the Small Business Subcontracting Plan as either Acceptable or Unacceptable using Table M-4; it will not be numerically scored.

The FAA will evaluate whether the Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan is fully compliant with FAA AMS clause 3.6.1-4 as well as the goals set forth in Section L.6.2.5.

The FAA will evaluate 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 submission of a Small Business Subcontracting Plan is not applicable to small businesses;

therefore, any prime Offerors who are small or small disadvantaged businesses will receive an Acceptable rating for this area.

M.6.6 Volume VI - Miscellaneous (Factor 6)

Business and Financial Capability. The Offeror’s demonstrated business and financial capability.

Prior to award of any contract, the Offeror must also be determined to be a responsible contractor.

The FAA intends to evaluate the financial statements requested in Section L.6.2.6.1as part of the responsibility determination by performing various financial ratios to ensure the financial capability of the Offeror.

Mentor Protégé Program Participation. If applicable, in accordance with AMS 3.6.1-10, the FAA will evaluate Offeror participation in the FAA Mentor Protégé Program.

M-10 | P a g e S c r e e n i n g I n f o r m a t i o n R e q u e s t ( S I R ) S e c t i o n M

Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI). The OCI information provided will be evaluated to determine if the Offeror (including subcontractors) has any OCI and, if so, whether the Offeror has presented an acceptable plan for mitigating the OCIs. Offerors determined to have an OCI that is not adequately mitigated will not be eligible for award.

M.7 Adjectival Ratings

The adjectival rating for each Volume, except Price, is defined below:

Table M-2. Adjectival Ratings for Technical Qualifications and Management Approach Volume Evaluations

Rating Description Excellent The Offeror’s proposal contains numerous strengths and no weaknesses, indicating the proposed effort will significantly benefit the Government.

Good Proposal contains numerous strengths and no more than two weaknesses that can be easily corrected, indicating the proposed effort will benefit the Government. Strengths offset weaknesses.

Satisfactory Proposal contains some strengths and more than two weaknesses that can be corrected without major revisions, indicating the proposed effort will meet the Government’s requirements. Strengths do not offset weakness.

Marginal Proposal contains several weaknesses, and strengths indicating the proposed effort will minimally, but acceptably, meets the Government’s requirements. Weaknesses clearly outweigh strengths.

Unsatisfactory Deficiencies were found in the Non-Price Factors. Proposal fails to meet Government’s requirements. Requirements can only be met with major changes to the proposal.

The adjectival ratings listed in Table M-2 will be used when evaluating the Technical Qualifications and Management Approach Volumes. Not all elements of a definition will necessarily apply to each sub-factor, factor, and volume rating. Each rating will be based on the evaluators’ judgment of which definition most closely matches their findings.

Table M-3. Adjectival Ratings for Past Performance Volume

Rating Definition

Acceptable

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

M-11 | P a g e S c r e e n i n g I n f o r m a t i o n R e q u e s t ( S I R ) S e c t i o n M

Unacceptable

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

Table M-4. Adjectival Ratings for Small Business Subcontracting Plan Evaluation

Rating Definition

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 and does not meet the specified subcontracting goals or the AMS content requirements.