SECTION M 20161222.pdf

DTFAWA-17-R-00010

Page M-1

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

3.2.4-31 Evaluation of Options (April 1996)

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 use a two phase source selection process. Advancement from Phase I to Phase II will be based on an evaluation of all factors in relation to the stated evaluation criteria for each Phase.

Offerors who do not proceed beyond Phase I are not eligible to participate in Phase II and will not be eligible for award.

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 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. The Government reserves the right to award a contract from the initial submissions without communications. Offerors are cautioned to submit their best offers with the initial proposals. The FAA reserves the right to reject any exception taken to a term or condition of this SIR.

http://conwrite.faa.gov/

Page M-2

M.3 BASIS FOR AWARD

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 Offeror 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 Offeror submitting the highest-rated technical proposal or the Offeror submitting the lowest price.

Offerors will receive a rating for Technical, Management, and Past Performance, which will be derived by evaluating offers in accordance with the factors defined for each area.

The OCD is integral to the overall evaluation of Volumes I and II as the information will be used to clarify, substantiate, and validate the information provided in these Volumes and will be factored into their ratings. The results of the OCD will contribute to the assessment of strengths, weaknesses and risks of the Offeror's solution.

For Volume IV, Price Proposal, the FAA will evaluate the total price, including fairness, reasonableness, completeness, realism and consistency/traceability of the offer.

Volumes V, Subcontracting Plan, will be evaluated as Pass/Fail.

Volume VI, Miscellaneous, will be reviewed for acceptability. The Government reserves the right and sole discretion to reject any or all proposed changes in the Tailored Contract.

The Government intends to select one contractor for the NVRP program. However, the Government reserves the right to make multiple awards or no award at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and the availability of funds.

M.3.1 Downselect Decision The FAA intends to downselect to no more than five offerors after review of the Phase I proposals. However, the FAA reserves the right to include more than five offerors. The downselect decision will be based upon identification of those Offerors deemed most likely to receive the award.

If at any point during the evaluation process, the FAA concludes that the Offeror does not have a reasonable chance of receiving this award, the FAA may eliminate the Offeror from further consideration for award. Any Offeror eliminated from further consideration will be notified in writing.

M.3.2 Evaluation Order of Importance

Volume I (Technical) is significantly more important than Volume II (Management) and Volume II is significantly more important than Volume III (Past Performance).

Page M-3

Volumes IV (Price Proposal) will be evaluated but not scored. As the differences among Offerors in the non-price evaluation decrease, the importance of price increases.

Volume V (Subcontracting Plan) will be evaluated and assigned an adjectival rating per the definitions in Table M-1. 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.

Volume VI (Miscellaneous) will be evaluated but not scored.

Table M-1 Definitions of Small Business Subcontracting Plan Adjectival Ratings

Rating Definition 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.

M.3.3 Award on Initial Offers The FAA reserves the right to award a contract without communications or negotiations.

Therefore, it is critical that each proposal be fully responsive to this solicitation and its provisions.

M.3.4 Risks Inherent in the Proposal Implicit in the evaluation of all proposal volumes is an assessment of risks. Risk is defined as the likelihood that the Government will be negatively impacted by the Offeror's failure to meet performance or schedule. This component of the evaluation will assess the likelihood that the Offeror's proposed solutions would successfully meet the requirements of this SIR.

Risks identified within any aspect of an Offeror's proposal, and within any of the evaluation factors, will be analyzed as to their potential impact on the NVRP program (e.g. equipment performance, logistics support, work performance, program management, or schedule). Additionally, risk identified due to inconsistencies and discrepancies between various aspects of the proposal will be considered, as will risks that pertain to unsubstantiated representations made by any Offeror within any aspect of their proposal.

Risk will be assessed in any Volume (except Price Proposal) or factor of the evaluation.

M.4 EVALUATION APPROACH

M.4.1 PHASE I - Screening

Page M-4

The Offeror’s Phase I submittal 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-2. Based upon the strengths, weaknesses, and risks identified, the Government will assign a rating from paragraph M-3 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. An overall rating will be given to the Phase I submittal based on resulting factor evaluations.

M.4.1.1 Phase I Screening Evaluation Factors The Government will evaluate Phase I of each Offeror’s proposal using the following evaluation factors:

Phase I Factor 2, Technical and Management Information Subfactor 1 - Product and Capability

• System Overview – Degree to which the Offeror’s product demonstrates the ability to securely record, store, retrieve, playback, duplicate, erase, and manage operational and administrative voice data in an Air Traffic environment. Degree to which deployment of the Offeror’s system could benefit the FAA and Department of Defense.

• Technical Approach – Degree to which the Offeror’s proposed system would meet all requirements of the SOW and Specification.

• Program Management – Degree to which the Offeror’s proposed management organization has the potential to successfully manage a program of this scope and complexity, as well as meet the SOW requirements.

• Production and Installation – Degree to which the Offeror’s production capacity and installation capability could successfully meet the FAA and DOD site implementation schedule.

Subfactor 2 - Supportability

• Supply Support – Degree to which the proposed Supply Support capability, including a nationwide maintenance and repair support infrastructure, capability, and capacity, could successfully support the product over its life cycle.

• Training – Degree to which proposed training documentation can satisfy FAA training requirements.

• Documentation – Degree to which proposed system operators’ and maintainers’ technical manuals can satisfy FAA documentation requirements.

Subfactor 3 - Product Maturity and Record of Sales

• Degree to which the proposal demonstrates a record of sales that fully supports a significant presence of the proposed product in the marketplace. Degree to which sufficient quantities of Voice Recorder Systems of comparable size and type to the NVR requirement, which can perform in an Air Traffic environment, have been previously sold.

M.4.2 PHASE II

Page M-5

The Phase II proposal will be evaluated based on the factors shown below; including the written proposal and OCD results. Based on this assessment, a rating will be derived for each factor as described in paragraph M.4.1. An overall rating will be given to the Phase II submittal based on a compilation of the evaluated factors.

M.4.2.1 Phase II Volume I - Technical Proposal – Evaluation Factors The Government will evaluate Volume I of each Offeror’s proposal using the following factors and sub-factors. Factor 1 is significantly more important than Factor

2. Factor 2 is slightly more important than Factors 3 and 4 which are of equal importance.

M.4.2.1.1 Volume I - Factor 1 - System Architecture Subfactors 1-6 are of equal importance and are more important than Subfactors 7-10 which are of equal importance.

Subfactor 1 – Proposed Baseline Architecture – Degree to which the Offeror’s technical architecture meets the Functional requirements described in the Specification. Degree to which the Offeror’s proposed architecture exists at the time of the proposal submission. In the event that the proposed architecture does not currently meet all requirements, the degree to which the Offerors plans for modification demonstrate achievability within the timeline will be assessed. Degree to which the hardware redundancy inherent in the Offeror’s architecture reduces/eliminates single points of failure will be evaluated.

Subfactor 2 – Performance Compliance – Degree to which the Offeror’s proposed system complies with all Performance requirements of the Specification.

Subfactor 3 – External Interface Compliance – Degree to which the Offeror’s proposed system complies with the External Interface requirements contained in the Specification.

Subfactor 4 – Diagnostics and Fault Detection – Degree to which the Offeror’s proposed system complies with the Reliability, Maintainability and Service Life requirements contained in the Specification. Degree to which the automated built-in diagnostics and fault detection features provided by the proposed system yields benefit to the user.

Subfactor 5 – Physical Design Compliance – Degree to which the Offeror’s proposed system complies with the Physical Design requirements contained in the Specification.

Subfactor 6 – System Size and Capacity – Degree to which the Offeror’s proposed system can meet the System Size and Capacity requirements contained in the Specification.

Page M-6

Subfactor 7 – System Expansion and Physical Reconfiguration – Degree to which the modular and scalable attributes of the Offeror’s technical architecture provide associated benefits, including the System Expansion and Physical Reconfiguration requirements contained in the Specification.

Subfactor 8 - Commercial Standards – Degree to which the Offeror’s proposed product uses commercial or industry standards rather than closed or proprietary standards.

Subfactor 9 - Risk Identification and Mitigation –Degree to which the offeror has identified risks associated with their overall architecture and has provided feasible and realistic plans for mitigation of all identified risk areas.

Subfactor 10 - Remote Access – Degree to which the Offeror’s proposed solution meets the requirements for remote access, including the Application Programming Interface (API), as shown in Specification.

M.4.2.1.2 Volume I Factor 2 – Operating Environment and Installation Capability All Subfactors within this factor are of equal importance.

Subfactor 1 – Operating Environment – Degree to which the Offeror demonstrates an understanding of the Air Traffic Operations environment and how the NVR will fit within this environment.

Subfactor 2 – Installation Capability - Degree to which the proposal demonstrates the installation capability and approach to meet the projected ordering and installation requirements over the life of the contract. Degree to which the Offeror is able to meet the installation requirements in the FAA facility access controlled environment.

Subfactor 3 – Security Compliance – Degree to which proposed system meets the Functional Security requirements contained in the Specification.

Subfactor 4 – Administrative Compliance – Degree to which the proposed system meets the Functional Administrative requirements contained in the Specification.

Subfactor 5 – Maintenance and Testing Compliance – Degree to which the proposed system meets the Functional Maintenance and Testing requirements contained in the Specification.

Subfactor 6 – Workstation Compliance – Degree to which the proposed system meets the Functional Workstation requirements contained in the Specification.

Subfactor 7 – Time Source Compliance – Degree to which the proposed system meets the Functional Time Source requirements contained in Specification.

Page M-7

M.4.2.1.3 Volume I Factor 3 – Test Validation

Test Validation – Degree to which the approach meets the Test and Evaluation requirements outlined in the SOW, specifically, Formal Qualification Test (FQT), Factory Acceptance Test (FAT) and Site Acceptance Test (SAT) and the Verification requirements contained in the Specification, Section 4.

M.4.2.1.4 Volume I Factor 4 - Human Factors Both Subfactors within this factor are of equal importance.

Subfactor 1 – Requirements Compliance - Degree to which the approach meets the

Human Factors requirements contained in the Specification.

Subfactor 2 – Design Flexibility - Degree to which the computer human interfaces can be reconfigured to accommodate design changes.

M.4.2.1.5 Operational Capability Demonstration (OCD)

The purpose of the OCD is to place the Offeror's proposed system in a test lab environment to assess its suitability, functionality and compliance with the requirements outlined in the SOW and Specification. The FAA evaluation team will assess the system and the results will be used to verify the information provided in Volumes I and II. In the event that OCD results are contrary to the written proposal, the evaluation assessment will prioritize the OCD results over the written proposal. The FAA Assessment will be conducted using a verification checklist. During the assessment, the FAA team will complete the verification checklist noting whether each item assessed was acceptable or unacceptable. The completed checklist for each vendor will be provided to the Phase II, Volume I evaluation team for incorporation into the Volume I evaluation results.

M.4.2.2 Volume II – Management Proposal - Evaluation Factors Factors 1 and 2 are of equal importance.

M.4.2.2.1 Volume II Factor 1 - Program Management

Subfactor 1 – Program Management Organization - Degree to which the Offeror’s management organization is aligned and structured to successfully execute the NVR program. Degree to which the Program Manager’s authority affords access to resources to accomplish the effort. Degree to which the offeror provides an effective approach to manage program risks, including effective risk mitigation strategies, which will provide benefit to the FAA.

Page M-8

Subfactor 2 –Management of Work Efforts– Degree to which the full range of effort defined in the SOW is sufficiently identified, allocated and managed. Degree to which the Offeror is able to ramp up with additional personnel to meet increasing production and installation requirements.

Subfactor 3 - Key Personnel - Degree to which the educational background and work experience of the Program Manager is relevant and therefore can be foreseen to lead to success in executing the NVRP contract.

Subfactor 4 – Cost, Schedule and Technical Oversight - Degree to which the Offeror’s management approach demonstrates that it has sufficient controls in place to ensure compliance with cost, schedule, and technical baselines. Degree to which the Offeror demonstrates it can accommodate changes to the delivery schedule without negative impact to cost or technical performance.

Subfactor 5 – Production – Degree to which the Offeror’s production capacity has the potential to produce the quantities sufficient to satisfy the maximum order quantities specified in Section B. Degree to which the Offeror demonstrates an appropriate planning capability and production control methods to efficiently execute the program.

M.4.2.2.2 Volume II Factor 2 – Supportability and Life Cycle Support Services

Subfactor 1 – Interim Contractor Depot Logistics Support (iCDLS) - Degree to which the Offeror’s approach to iCDLS supports FAA requirements for life cycle support.

Subfactor 2 - Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages – Degree to which the Offeror has provided a sound and reasonable plan that ensures the ability to support component parts through continuous evaluation of sources over the life cycle.

Subfactor 3 – Warranty – Degree to which the Offeror provides a warranty that meets requirements.

Subfactor 4 – Training - Degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a capability to provide training courses for Operators and Maintainers that meet FAA requirements.

Degree to which the Offeror has a sound and reasonable plan to develop instructor led and distance learning training. If COTS training material requires modification, degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a sufficient plan to accomplish changes within a timeframe that meets FAA needs.

Subfactor 5 – Technical Documentation - Degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a capability to provide technical manuals for Operators and Maintainers

Page M-9 that will meet FAA requirements. If documentation requires modification, degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a sufficient plan to accomplish changes within a timeframe that meets FAA needs.

M.4.2.3 Phase II - Volume III - Past Performance – Evaluation Factor Past Performance is evaluated from a combination of the Past Performance Questionnaire responses received and from the evaluation team’s assessment of the Offeror’s write up of Past Performance Factors 1 (Relevance) and 2.

(Recency). The Government reserves the right to directly contact the customer points of contact. 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, 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.

The past-performance evaluation factors are as follows:

Factor 1 – Relevance The past performance is comparable to NVR in terms of size, scope and complexity and the operating environment.

Factor 2 – Recency The past performance is ongoing or was completed within three (3) 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. Past performance indicates success in meeting the Logistics 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 – Program Management

The past performance demonstrates a successful record of managing programs of similar size scope and complexity; and managing cost, implementing corrective actions when performance shortfalls are identified, and supervising contractor personnel and their work efforts.

Factor 6 – 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 customers to achieve program objectives.

Page M-10

A rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable will be assigned to each factor by the Government.

The Past Performance Evaluation Team will evaluate those responses received by the submission deadline. If no more than two past-performance survey responses are available for consideration, the Offeror will receive a rating of Unacceptable for Factors 3-6. If three past- performance survey responses are available for consideration, the Offeror will receive an Acceptable rating for each factor if at least two ratings for that factor are Satisfactory or higher.

The Past Performance 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.4.2.4 Volume IV - Price Proposal

Parts 1 – Section B Pricing: The Government will evaluate the prices for each individual CLIN as well as a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for each Offeror.

The base and option periods will be added together to establish the Offeror’s total evaluated prices for evaluation; however, this does not bind the Government to exercise the options. The Government will use price analysis to evaluate the prices The price of each individual CLIN, for the base and all option years will be evaluated for:

1. Fairness/reasonableness -- 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.

2. Balance – Degree to which 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 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.

3. Realism -- process that focuses on the proposed price and performance risks, i.e. 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, the Government reserves the right to request additional cost and pricing information and to conduct cost analysis.

Page M-11

Part 2 – Notional Orders: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s response to the Notional Orders shown in Attachment J.7. Vendors must clearly explain their rationale relative to quantities. This evaluation will be used to assess whether the Offeror understands the FAA requirements and has proposed a reasonable and consistent pricing methodology.

M.4.2.5 Volume V - Subcontracting Plan 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.17.7 for each year of the contract

The Government does not require a Small Business Subcontracting Plan from small businesses responding to this SIR.

M.4.2.6 Volume VI – Miscellaneous Part 4 - Responsibility Determination An Offeror must be determined responsible by the Contracting Officer in order to receive contract award. To be determined responsible, Offerors must be technically and financially capable of performing the magnitude and scope of the work.

Part 5 - Tailored Contract Response The FAA will evaluate each Offerors Tailored Contract response and determine if proposed changes are acceptable as well as consistent with the Offeror’s proposal.

M.4.2.7 Vendor Visits FAA reserves the right to conduct Vendor site visits to observe and assess the following types of areas:

• Technical Capability

• Production Capability

• Plant Facilities and Equipment

• Quality Assurance Capability

• Transportation/Shipping Operations

• Plant Safety

• Labor Resources

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

Page M-12

Strength

An aspect of a proposal that would positively impact performance of the resulting contract, exceed 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 to successfully perform the required effort or the proposed approach.

M.5 RATINGS

These ratings will be utilized during the evaluation process for Phase I and Phase II (Technical and Management proposals).

Table M-3 Definition of Evaluation Ratings

RATING DESCRIPTION

Excellent The Offeror’s response comprehensively addresses all 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 all requirements. The combined impact of the strengths outweighs the combined impact of any weaknesses.

Satisfactory The Offeror’s response adequately addresses all 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 all requirements. The combined impact of the weaknesses outweighs the combined impact of any strengths.

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

M.5 Ratings