Section M_Amendment 000003.pdf

PART IV – SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

DFTAWA-17-R-00029 Page 1

M.1 AMS 3.1-1 CLAUSE AND PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

(JULY 2011)

This Screening Information Request (SIR), 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.

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

3.2.4-31 Evaluation of Options (April 1996)

3.3.1-30 Progress Payments Not Included (November 1997)

M.2 INFORMATION AND CONSIDERATIONS AFFECTING VENDOR PROPOSAL

SUBMISSIONS

a) This acquisition will employ best practices and procedures for competitive negotiated procurements as authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration Acquisition Management System (AMS).

All offers will be screened initially to determine if they are in compliance with the Screening

Information Request (SIR) procurement response instructions described in Section L. Each submittal must be complete, accurate, and contain the Offeror’s best Management, Technical, Price, and Past

Performance terms. A proposal may be eliminated if it does not represent a reasonable effort to address itself to all elements of the SIR or clearly demonstrates that the Offeror does not understand the requirements of the SIR. An omission or a vague response to the requirements of this solicitation may be deemed an incomplete proposal, as it relates to the requirements of the solicitation and consequently may cause the Offeror to be deemed ineligible for award.

The Government reserves the right to eliminate Offerors from competition if a proposal does not meet a Government requirement or based upon any screening decision. The Contracting Officer will notify, in writing, any Offeror eliminated from further consideration. Eliminated Offerors may request a debriefing after contract award.

This Section M provides the criteria by which Offerors’ proposals will be evaluated.

b) All offers will be subjected to a detailed evaluation by the Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET).

1) Volume 1, Offer, Other Documents, and Pricing. Price proposals will be evaluated in accordance with SIR Section M.6 and the Price Evaluation.

2) Volume 2, Management, Technical, and Past Technical Performance will be subjected to a detailed evaluation by the Technical Evaluation Team (TET) that will rate proposals in accordance with Section M.5 Technical Evaluation.

c) Technical proposals will be evaluated and rated in accordance with pre-established evaluation factors.

These factors are listed in M.5.1.

d) The Price Evaluation Team (PET) will not have access to technical proposals during the initial detailed evaluation. Likewise, the technical evaluation team will not have access to price proposals during the initial detailed evaluation. After completion of the initial detailed evaluation, the technical and price evaluation teams may have access to the other team’s proposals only as authorized by the http://conwrite.faa.gov/

DFTAWA-17-R-00029 Page 2

Contracting Officer. At this time a consolidated PET and TET team will evaluate Best Value as indicated in M.4.5 below.

e) The offer that provides the overall best value to the FAA will be selected. The successful offer may not necessarily be the lowest priced offer. The Government will evaluate Management, Technical, Past Technical Performance and Price.

The FAA will also consider risk in its determination of best value. Subjective judgment on the part of the FAA is implicit in the evaluation process.

Note: The Executive Summary provided as part of the Volume II Management factor will not be evaluated or considered in the contract award decision.

f) Because several proposals are anticipated, uniformity of proposals is essential to assure a fair and accurate assessment of each offer. All proposals must be submitted in accordance with Section L and must conform to all the terms and conditions of the SIR. Failure to conform to all requirements expressed may be cause for rejection without further evaluation or discussion.

g) Additional information may be requested from the Offeror whose proposal the FAA considers to represent the overall best value. The information may clarify or supplement, but not basically change the proposal as submitted. The FAA reserves the right to award a contract based on initial offers received, without communications. For this reason, each initial offer should be submitted on the most favorable terms from the standpoint of technical approach and price.

h) In accordance with clause 3.2.2.3-19 of this SIR, the FAA reserves the right to limit Offerors participating in the competition to only those most likely to receive a contract award. Vendors will be notified if a down-selection decision results in their elimination from further consideration for award.

M.3 BASIS FOR AWARD

This acquisition will employ best practices and procedures for competitive procurements as authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration Acquisition Management System (AMS). A “Best Value” approach will be used as the basis for selecting an Offeror for award. The Best Value approach is a source selection method 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 level of importance as defined in Section M.

Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is judged to represent the Best Value to the

Government. The Best Value decision will be based on the evaluation of each Offeror’s proposal submitted in accordance with Section L and evaluated in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section

M. Best Value represents the solution that is the most advantageous to the Government based on the evaluation of Management, Technical, Price, and Past Technical Performance Volumes based on the criteria set forth in Section M. It does not require that an award be made to either the Offeror submitting the highest rated technical solution or to the Offeror submitting the lowest price; i.e., the proposal with the lowest total evaluated price may not be judged to represent the Best Value to the Government. The

Government may perform a trade-off analysis between the Management, Technical, Price, and Past

Technical Performance evaluation results to arrive at the Best Value decision. The source selection process is by nature subjective and the Government Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) and the

Source Selection Official (SSO) will apply their professional judgment throughout the entire source selection process.

DFTAWA-17-R-00029 Page 3

The FAA reserves the right to: (i) reject any and all offers, (ii) waive any requirements, and (iii) accept minor irregularities and discrepancies if it is determined to be in the best interest of the FAA to do so.

The Government anticipates awarding one contract resulting from this solicitation. Should it decide to do so, the Government reserves the right to make multiple awards or to not make an award from this solicitation.

Offerors are advised that the Government reserves the right to make an award based on initial proposals received, without communications, communications. Offerors must not assume that they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss, or revise their proposal. Offerors are instructed to submit proposals with their most favorable price and non-price terms.

M.4 EVALUATION PROCESS

The following sections describe the process by which the Government will evaluate proposals. The

Government will exercise judgment in evaluating all information collected.

M.4.1 Compliance Review

Each volume of the Offeror’s proposal will first be reviewed by the Contracting Officer to determine whether it satisfies the requirements of Section L and includes all the required information. Proposals that omit required information or do not fully conform to Section L requirements may be found ineligible for award.

M.4.2 Offeror Communications, Deviations, and Waivers

The Government may communicate with Offerors orally or in writing during the course of the evaluation.

The Government reserves the right to conduct communications with one, some, all, or none of the

Offerors. Communications with one or more Offerors does not necessitate communication with all

Offerors.

Offeror-proposed deviations and waivers will not be evaluated separately from the proposal. The

Government will review any proposed deviations and waivers and determine which are acceptable to the Government and which are not. If a deviation or waiver is accepted, it will be evaluated as part of the proposal. If the Government does not accept a deviation or waiver, that portion will not be evaluated as part of the proposal. If the Government accepts a deviation or waiver, the Offeror may receive a strength, weakness, or risk for that deviation or waiver. The acceptance or rejection of a deviation or waiver is not automatically considered a strength, weakness, or risk.

M.4.3 Order of Importance

The Technical factor is more important than Management factor. The Management factor and Technical factor when combined are more important than the Price. The Price factor is more important than Volume

IV (Past Technical Performance). While the Management and Technical Volumes are more important than Price, to the extent that two or more Offerors are rated comparably in Volumes II and III, the

Volume V Price evaluation becomes more significant as Offerors are rated more comparably in the

Management and Technical Volumes.

Management, Sub-Factor 1 (Management Approach) and Sub-Factor 2 (Transition Approach) are of equal importance. Sub-Factor 1 and Sub-Factor 2 are each more important than Sub-Factor 3

(Subcontracting Teaming Agreements). Offerors must submit Sub-Contractor Teaming Agreements only if the Offeror will use sub-contractors to perform any of the work under this contract. Sub-contracting

Teaming Agreements will only be evaluated if they are proposed by an Offeror.

DFTAWA-17-R-00029 Page 4

Technical, Sub-Factor 3 (TSS Logistics Support) and Sub-Factor 4 (TSS Technical Support) are equal in importance and are each more important than Sub-Factor 1 (TSS Tech Refresh), Sub-Factor 2 (TSS

System Performance), and Sub-Factor 5 (TSS Site Activation and Deployment) individually. Sub-Factor

1, Sub-Factor 2, and Sub-Factor 5 are equal in importance.

M.4.4 Summary of Overall Evaluation Process

(a) Proposal Price, Management, Technical, and Past Technical Performance factors are evaluated as set forth herein. The SSET, a combined team consisting of both Price Evaluation Team (PET) and Technical

Evaluation Team (TET) members, will consider tradeoffs between technical factors and price, keeping in mind that non-price factors are more important than price in determining the overall Best Value to the

FAA. The SSET will not meet until the PET and TET team have completed their respective evaluations.

(b) Management, Technical, and Past Technical Performance Evaluation. The Management, Technical, and Past Technical Performance volume will henceforth be referred to as the Technical proposal/volume.

Technical proposals will be reviewed by the TET in order to determine whether the minimum requirements of the Statement of Work (SOW) have been met. Technical proposals that have been evaluated to meet the minimum requirements as identified in the SOW will then be further evaluated and rated according to their ability to exceed the requirements identified in the SOW and the evaluation factors listed in Section M.5.1. Technical ratings are then ranked in preparation for a Best Value determination. Technical proposals that have been evaluated and determined to not meet the minimum requirements as identified in the SOW may be eliminated from further consideration.

The Government may conduct a Product Demonstration/Meeting at the Offerors primary facility to evaluate the performance of the products and services being offered by the Offeror and to provide a forum for the Offeror to answer any questions identified by the Government during the Product Demonstration and also from the Government’s evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal. The Government will notify the

Offeror at least one week in advance if the Government desires to have a Product Demonstration/Meeting at the Offeror’s facility. The Government will provide a list of personnel attending the Product

Demonstration/Meeting and an Agenda for the meeting. In addition to a session where the Government may seek additional information and clarification on the Offeror’s proposal, the Government may also want to view the Offeror’s facilities and services, including the Help Desk, support equipment, and engineering, logistics, maintenance, training, and other relevant spaces and services.

If the government decides to conduct Product Demonstration Meetings, only offeror’s rated “Good” or better in Management, Technical and “Satisfactory Confidence “ or better in Past Technical

Performance factors are eligible.

(c) Risk Assessment. The Government will assess the risk associated with conducting business with each

Offeror. This risk assessment will be completed after the technical evaluation. The risk assessment will be used to help determine best value for the government.

(d) Price Evaluation. The Price Evaluation Team (PET) will evaluate offers in accordance with M.6 below. Unlike technical proposal submissions, price proposals will not be rated.

(e) Best Value Determination. Using the results from the TET and the PET, the SSET will select for award the offer that provides the greatest overall value to the FAA. A tradeoff between technical and price may be made, in which case, the lowest total evaluated price offer may not provide the greatest overall value to the Government.

DFTAWA-17-R-00029 Page 5

(f) To be eligible for award, the Offeror must be determined to be financially viable and found to be responsible by the Contracting Officer (CO) prior to the award of any resultant contract (refer to Section

L.12.1.5).

M.5 EVALUATION CRITERIA

M.5.1 Volume II Management Evaluation

The evaluation factors listed below are intended to determine the offerors' capabilities to effectively and efficiently provide Tower Simulation Systems (TSS) support services to the FAA.

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s Management Volume for the following areas as defined by

Tables M-1, M-4, and M-5 in this document:

Management Rating

Strengths and Weaknesses

Risk Assessment

The Government will determine what strengths, weaknesses, and risks impact each overall Volume, Factor, and Sub-Factor. These strengths, weaknesses, and risks will then be considered by the

Government in the determination of an overall rating for each Offeror’s Management proposal ranging from Excellent to Unsatisfactory.

M.5.1.1 Factor 1 – Volume II Management

Sub-Factor 1 – Management Approach

This Sub-Factor will be evaluated on the program management and logistics support management approaches, processes, procedures, methodologies, staffing, support resources, and other information proposed by the Offeror for the efficient and effective performance of this SIR.

Sub-Factor 2 – Transition Approach

This Sub-Factor will be evaluated based on the degree to which the proposed transition methodology, timeline, staffing, and staff qualifications and training will ensure a timely, effective, and efficient transition of the TSS services from the existing FAA contract to the contract to be awarded under this SIR.

Sub-Factor 3 – Subcontracting This Sub-Factor will be evaluated on the management and technical expertise and experience information provided by the Offeror for each proposed Sub-Contractor Teaming Agreement.

Offerors must submit Sub-Contracting Teaming Agreements only if the Offeror plans to use sub-contractors to perform any of the work under this contract. Sub-contracting Teaming Agreements will only be evaluated if they are proposed by an Offeror.

M.5.2 Volume III Technical Evaluation

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s Technical Volume for the following areas as defined by

Tables M-1, M-4, and M-5 in this document:

Technical Rating

Strengths and Weaknesses

Risk Assessment

DFTAWA-17-R-00029 Page 6

The Government will determine what strengths, weaknesses, and risks impact each overall Volume, Factor, or Sub-Factor. These strengths, weaknesses, and risks will then be considered by the Government in the determination of an overall rating for each Offeror’s Technical proposal ranging from Excellent to

Unsatisfactory.

M.5.2.1 Factor 1 – Technical Proposal

Sub-Factor 1 – TSS Tech Refresh

This Sub-Factor will be evaluated based on the information provided in the Offeror’s proposal that discusses the Offeror’s approach to accomplishing the implementation of the TSS Tech

Refresh upgrade at each of the TSS locations including, but not limited to, the following tasks as delineated in Section 3.12 of the TSS SOW:

o Procurement of TSS Tech Refresh components o Storage and shipping of the components o Removal of the TSS components to be replaced o Installation and checkout of the new TSS Tech Refresh components o Modification of TSS databases as required o Disposal of the old components o Conduct of Operator and Maintenance training course for the new system configuration

Sub-Factor 2 – TSS System Performance

This Sub-Factor will be evaluated based on the information provided in the Offeror’s proposal that discusses the Offeror’s approach to ensuring the TSS System Performance Requirements specified in the TSS Contract Specification are maintained, including, but not limited to, the following TSS system performance requirements delineated in Sections 3.0 and 4.0 of the TSS

Specification:

o Providing and maintaining a system performance and operation functions specified in the

TSS specification o Knowledge and experience providing computer-simulated training for complex systems and operations such as air traffic controller (ATC) operations o Knowledge of the FAA ATC environment, particularly for ATC Tower (ATCT) operations o Maintaining an Operational Availability (Ao) of at least 95% for each TSS system at each

TSS location o Achieving a Mean Time To Repair (MTTR) of no more than 72 hours for every TSS failure o Ensuring the TSS system design and operation is representative of the FAA Air Traffic

Control Tower (ATCT) operational environment

Sub-Factor 3 – TSS Maintenance Support that discusses the Offeror’s approach to providing a nation-wide maintenance support service for the TSS program including, but not limited to, the following services delineated in Sections 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7 of the TSS SOW:

o 24x7 Help Desk o Web-based Integrated Data Environment (WIDE) o System maintenance o Hardware and software configuration management o Hardware and software maintenance, modification, and testing o Spares management - procurement, storage, and shipment of replacement parts

DFTAWA-17-R-00029 Page 7 o Operator and maintenance training courses o On-site Field Service Representatives (FSR) and Field Service Technicians (FST)

Sub-Factor 4 – TSS Technical Support that discusses the Offeror’s approach to accomplishing the development and modification of TSS products including, but not limited to, the following services delineated in Section 3.5 of the TSS

SOW:

o Visual Databases (VDBs) o Moving Models and Liveries o System Feature Requests o System Service Requests o System Reports o Training Scenarios

Sub-Factor 5 – TSS Site Activation and Deployment that discusses how the Offeror will accomplish the site activation and deployment of a TSS system, either for a new system or a relocated system, including, but not limited to, the following tasks as delineated in Section 3.8 of the TSS SOW:

o Site surveys o Preparation of system installation plans o System installation and verification tests o Conduct Operator and Maintenance training courses

M.5.3 Volume IV – Past Technical Performance Evaluation

M.5.3.1 Factor 3 – Past Technical Performance

Past Technical Performance must be either as a Prime or Sub-Contractor and must be recent. For the purpose of this proposal evaluation, recent is defined as performed in the last five (5) years and may include active (on which the Offeror has performed for at least one (1) year) and inactive contracts. The

Offeror’s Past Technical Performance will be evaluated based on the completed Section L attachments that are similar in scope and complexity to this SIR. The contracts selected by the Offeror must demonstrate that the Offeror has an understanding of the work to be performed under this SIR.

The past technical performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated relevant record of performance in meeting the contract requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each Offeror after evaluating the Offeror’s past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. First, the Government will evaluate the

Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant an effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through this SIR.

DFTAWA-17-R-00029 Page 8

Relevancy is defined as those contracts of similar scope, and complexity under similar conditions which consider those aspects of an Offeror’s contract history that would provide the greatest ability to measure whether the Offeror will satisfy this SIR.

Offeror’s past performance projects will be assigned a relevancy rating ranging from “Very

Relevant” to “Not Relevant” in accordance with the Past Technical Performance Relevancy

Ratings described in Table M-2 below.

The Government reserves the right to contact and verify past technical performance information with the references provided in the Past Performance Questionnaires, and to use any other past performance information available. Additionally, past performance data may be obtained through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), the

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), or similar systems, other

Government departments and agencies, program managers, contracting officers, and other sources known to the Government (including commercial sources) including references other than those identified by the Offeror. Offerors will be given the opportunity to address any negative performance information resulting from the past performance assessment inquiries.

Offerors without a record of relevant past technical performance or for whom information on past technical performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and will be rated “Neutral” for this Sub-Factor.

The second aspect of the past technical performance evaluation is a determination of how well the Offeror performed on the contracts. The Government will review the Offeror’s past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to its performance assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, the Government will assign one of the Past Performance Confidence

Assessment Ratings specified in Table M-3 below.

M.6 VOLUME V – PRICE EVALUATION

The Government will evaluate proposed pricing for all Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) for reasonableness, and review proposed pricing for completeness, consistency, and traceability. Price proposals will not be scored or rated. The Government reserves the right to perform price realism, if deemed necessary in accordance with AMS Guidance T3.2.3, Cost and Price Methodology. If necessary, the Government reserves the right to request additional cost or pricing data to perform cost analysis.

Reasonableness - The FAA will evaluate each price proposal for reasonableness in accordance with AMS Policy Section 3.2.3 and AMS Policy and Procurement Guidance Section T3.2.3. A 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.

Completeness/Consistency/Traceability - The FAA will review each price proposal to determine whether it includes all required pricing information, aligns with summary pricing tables, and provides adequate and traceable supporting pricing details. The FAA at its sole discretion may require additional information or reject proposals lacking completeness, consistency, and traceability.

M.6.1 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

DFTAWA-17-R-00029 Page 9

Using the populated Section B, submitted by the Offeror, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s

Price proposal to determine the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). In evaluating offers for source selection, the

FAA will use the TEP which includes base and option periods. The evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). The TEP will be equal to the sum of:

1. Fixed Priced CLINs;

2. The result of multiplying the estimated hours provided for the Engineering Services CLINs XX13 and XX14 by the engineering services blended rate;

3. The result of multiplying the estimated units provided for CLINs XX03, XX04, XX05, XX06, XX09, XX10, and XX12; and

4. CLINs XX15, and XX16 with Government provided Not-to-Exceed (NTE) amounts.

The result of multiplying the estimated hours provided for CLINs XX13 and XX14 and the estimated units provided for CLINs XX03, XX04, XX05, XX06, XX09, XX10, and XX12 will be incorporated into the contract as an NTE value. The hours and units provided in Section B for the aforementioned CLINs are for evaluation purposes only and do not bind the Government to order that level of effort/number of units. The Contracting Officer will determine the required level of effort/number of units during the execution of the delivery/task orders. The proposed engineering services blended rate and unit prices will be fixed and incorporated into the contract.

In the event that a realism analysis is conducted and if the FAA determines the proposed price to be unrealistically low, the proposal may be eliminated from competition on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirements or has developed and submitted an impracticable and/or unsubstantiated proposal.

M.6.2 Blended Rates for Engineering Services CLINs

The Government will evaluate the proposed rates for reasonableness.

M.6.3 Exceptions, Deviations, or Assumptions

The Government reserves the right to reject any request for any exceptions, deviations, or assumptions.

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

Negative responses are required if Offeror takes no exceptions or deviations to the SIR’s requirements or no assumptions are made.

M.7 EVALUATION RATINGS

a) Factors will be rated by the evaluation team on the rating scale shown below.

Excellent

Good

Satisfactory

Marginal

Unsatisfactory

b) The ratings relate to the following definitions:

The following criteria will be used to evaluate the Offeror’s proposal volumes as applicable.

DFTAWA-17-R-00029 Page 10

M.7.1 MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL EVALUATION RATINGS

Factors 1 and 2 will be evaluated using the following scale:

Table M-1

RATING DEFINITION

Excellent

The Offeror's response to this solicitation is comprehensive and demonstrates the capability to perform the full range of requirements and work effort. All or almost all aspects of the evaluation factors are addressed in a highly competent, substantiated, and logical fashion. Few, if any, areas for improvement can be cited. Proposal demonstrates that performance can be provided at a level that substantially exceeds expectations. The combined impact of strengths far outweighs the combined impact of weaknesses.

Good

The Offeror's response to this solicitation is fully acceptable and appropriately responds to the full range of requirements and work effort. Most aspects of the evaluation factors are addressed in a highly competent, substantiated, and logical fashion. A few minor weaknesses are noted. Proposal demonstrates that performance can be provided at a level that exceeds expectations. The combined impact of the strengths outweighs the combined impact of any weaknesses.

Satisfactory

The Offeror's response to this solicitation is appropriate and addresses adequately the full range of requirements and work effort. Many aspects of the evaluation factors are addressed in a competent, substantiated, and logical fashion. Although there may be some weaknesses and areas in need of improvement, these are offset by strengths in other areas.

Marginal

The Offeror's response does not respond adequately to the full range of requirements and work efforts. Few aspects of the evaluation factors are addressed. Offeror's response is deficient in several areas with no corresponding offset in other areas. Proposal raises concerns that acceptable performance cannot be achieved or sustained. The combined impact of any weaknesses and deficiencies outweighs the combined impact of any strengths.

Unsatisfactory

The Offeror's response to this solicitation is inadequate and does not demonstrate a satisfactory understanding of the requirements and work efforts.

Most aspects of the evaluation factors are not addressed. The proposal does not demonstrate the capability to support the Government's needs. Proposal raises serious concerns that acceptable performance cannot be achieved or sustained. The combined impact of weaknesses and deficiencies far outweighs the combined impact of any strengths.

M.7.2 PAST TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS

Factor 3 will be evaluated using the following rating scales.

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Table M-2

RATING DESCRIPTION

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

DFTAWA-17-R-00029 Page 11

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Partially Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Neutral No record exists - neither favorably nor unfavorably.

PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

Table M-3

RATING DESCRIPTION

Substantial

Confidence

Based on the Offeror's relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory

Confidence

Based on the Offeror's relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited

Confidence

Based on the Offeror's relevant performance record, the Government has a limited expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

Based on the Offeror's relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: An offeror with a final rating of No Confidence may be found ineligible for award.

Unknown

Confidence

(Neutral)

No relevant performance record is available or the Offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

M.8 EVALUATION DEFINITIONS

The definitions listed in Table M-4 below will be used when evaluating each Offeror’s proposal.

Table M-4

CATEGORY DESCRIPTION

Strength

An element of an Offeror's proposal which exceeds requirements and provides an especially good, innovative, or unique feature, or which provides value and benefit to the Government, such as improved performance.

Weakness An element in the Offeror's proposal that increases the likelihood of program failure or does not otherwise meet the requirements of this SIR.

DFTAWA-17-R-00029 Page 12

Deficiency

An aspect of the proposal, such as a descriptive statement, or the lack of requested information, demonstrating that the proposal fails to meet the requirements of this solicitation.

Substantiated Competent, documented evidence that supports or otherwise verifies proposal claims, approaches, or contents.

Unsubstantiated Insufficient or no documented evidence is provided to substantiate proposal claims, approached, or contents.

M.9 RISK ASSESSMENT DEFINITION

The risk categories listed in Table M-5 below will be used when evaluating the risks of each Offeror’s proposal. A risk is defined as 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.

Table M-5

CATEGORY DESCRIPTION

High

Highly likely to cause significant decreases in performance or increases in cost and/or schedule, even with increased contractor emphasis and increased Government monitoring.

Moderate

Could potentially cause some decreases in performance or increases in cost and/or schedule. However, increased Contractor emphasis and increased Government monitoring may be able to overcome difficulties.

Low

Limited potential to cause decreases in performance or increases in cost and/or schedule. Normal Contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will probably be sufficient to overcome difficulties.

M.10 NON-GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL PARTICIPATION

Offerors are hereby notified that the FAA may have proposals or other written information provided in response to this acquisition reviewed by personnel from various support contractors who may serve as advisors to FAA evaluation personnel during the evaluation phase of this acquisition. All non-

Government personnel and their corporations have signed a Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA) and

Conflict of Interest (COI) statements. The exclusive responsibility for source selection, however, will remain with the FAA. The FAA has plans to use support contractors to take part in the source selection process. These support contractors are:

Aurora Sciences, Inc.

Compass Cyber Security, LLC