ATIS Section M.pdf

DTFAWA-17-R-00032

PART IV – SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M - 1

M.1 AMS CLAUSE 3.1-1 CLAUSES 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

REFERENCE TITLE

3.2.4-31 Evaluation of Options (April 1996) 3.3.1-30 Progress Payments Not Included (November 1997) 3.11-50 No Evaluation of Transportation Costs (April 1999)

M.2 INFORMATION AND CONSIDERATIONS AFFECTING OFFEROR 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).

Each proposal will be evaluated on the basis of its written submissions and price information described in Section L. Separate technical and price proposals are required as described in Section L.

• Volume I, Offer and Other Documents. Price proposals will be evaluated in accordance with SIR Section M.6, Volume V-Price Evaluation.

• Volume II (Management), Volume III (Technical) and Volume IV (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 Evaluation Criteria.

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

http://conwrite.faa.gov/

M - 2

These factors are listed in Section M.5.

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 Contracting Officer. At this time a consolidated PET and TET team will evaluate Best Value as indicated in Section M.3 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 Section L clause 3.2.2.3-19 – Contract Award 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 represents 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

M - 3 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.

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 also reserves the right to request revisions if the Contracting Officer later determines the need.

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. 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 government will evaluate Management Approach, Technical Capability, Past Technical Performance, and Price factors. The combination of Management Approach, Technical Capability, and Past Technical Performance (Volumes II, III and IV) is more important than Price (Volume V).

The Technical Approach is more important than Past Technical Past Performance and Management Approach factors. The Past Technical Past Performance is equally important as the Management Approach factor. While the Technical Capability, Management Approach, and Past Technical Past Performance Volumes are each more important than Price, to the extent that two (2) 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.

M - 4

Management Approach (Factor 1), Sub-Factor 1.1 (Program Management), Sub-Factor 1.2 (Schedule), Sub- Factor 1.3 (Quality Control) and Sub-Factor 1.4 (Subcontracting Arrangements) all are equally important.

Technical Capability (Factor 2), Sub-Factor 2.1 (ATIS System Functionality) and Sub-Factor 2.2 (ATIS System Scalability) are equally important.

If the Offeror’s Management Approach and Technical Capability ratings are, individually, “Acceptable” or better, then that Offeror’s Past Technical Performance will be evaluated in accordance with Section M.5.3.1 using the Past Technical Performance Evaluation (Volume IV) outlined herein, and that Offeror’s price will be evaluated in accordance with Section M.6 (Volume V).

Only Offerors rated “Acceptable” or better in Management and Technical Factors and “Satisfactory Confidence” or better in Past Performance are eligible for award.

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. 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.

(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 Section 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.

(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.11.5.2.4).

M - 5

M.5 EVALUATION CRITERIA

M.5.1 Volume II Management Evaluation

The evaluation factors listed below are intended to determine the Offeror’s capability to provide Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS) systems 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 –Management Approach

• Sub-Factor 1.1 – Program Management This sub factor will be evaluated on the proposed management approach, any subcontracting relationships, organization, efficiency of communications, and problem-and-issue resolution process, and how these items will result in a benefit to the government (Sections C.6.0 and C.6.1).

• Sub-Factor 1.2 – Schedule This sub factor will be evaluated on the basis of the proposed delivery schedule for ATIS System Units 1 through 3, schedule, and schedule-control methodology and how these items will ensure a timely, effective, and efficient delivery of products and services (Section C.6.2).

• Sub-Factor 1.3 – Quality Control This sub factor will be evaluated on the processes and procedures proposed to ensure that the quality of service and products provided under the contract meet or exceed requirements (Section C.6.3).

• Sub-Factor 1.4 – Subcontracting Arrangements

This sub factor will be evaluated on the division of responsibility and authority between the firms and the processes that will be followed to disseminate information among team members (Section C.6.1).

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

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 - 6

M.5.2.1 Factor 2- Technical Capability

• Sub-Factor 2.1 – ATIS System Functionality This sub-factor will be evaluated on the basis of the proposed functionality of the ATIS System. This will include, but is not limited to, the capability of the proposed system to meet the requirements stated in Section C.3 and Attachment Section J-1.

• Sub-Factor 2.2 – ATIS System Scalability This sub-factor will be evaluated on the basis of the scalability of the proposed ATIS system (Section C.3.1). This will include the use of rack and cab space and the complexity of increasing the capability of the ATIS system to a more capable system.

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) 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.

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. Additionally, the Government will evaluate whether the offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to customer satisfaction and timely delivery of quality services by reviewing the Offeror’s record of the following:

• Quality of products and services

• Timeliness and adherence to schedules

• Customer satisfaction

• Overall contract performance.

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 L-2 Past Performance Questionnaires, and to use any other past performance information available. Additionally, past performance data may be obtained through the Past Performance

M - 7

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 performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and will be rated “Neutral.

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 FAA will evaluate Volume V for reasonableness in accordance with AMS Policy 3.2.3.2 and AMS Procurement Guidance T3.2.3. 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 V to determine whether it includes all required pricing information, prices are consistent with described pricing methodology and are traceable to the requirements set forth in Section B.4.

Completeness will be determined based on the information requested in Section L.11.5. The FAA, at its sole discretion, might require additional information or reject proposals lacking completeness, consistency, or traceability.

The FAA reserves the right to evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for balance. Unbalanced pricing exists where, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more labor categories is significantly understated and the price of one or more labor categories is significantly overstated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques; or the offer is so grossly unbalanced that its acceptance would be equivalent to allowing an advanced payment (front loaded). Offerors are cautioned that a proposal may be rejected if unbalanced pricing exists and the FAA determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk.

The FAA reserves the right to perform price realism in accordance with AMS T3.2.3. The FAA reserves the right to conduct cost analysis on labor rates if deemed necessary to support the price realism analysis. This may require the FAA to request additional information from the Offerors.

M.6.1 Total Evaluated Price (TEP) In evaluating offers for source selection, the FAA will calculate the TEP which includes base and all option periods. The evaluation of options does not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). The TEP will be equal to the sum of:

1. The extended prices of CLINS X001, X006, X007, and X008; and

2. The NTE amounts for the T&M and CR CLINs, X002, X003, X004, X005 and X009.

M - 8

Note: The T&M labor rates will be evaluated for reasonableness, but will not be included in the TEP other than as the NTE amounts provided.

The amounts for CLINs X001, X006, X007, and X008 provided in Section B will be incorporated into the contract as part of the ceiling price. The number of 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.

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. 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.6.3 Responsible Prospective Contractors

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.11.5.2.4 as part of the responsibility determination by performing various financial ratios to ensure the financial capability of the Offeror.

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.

M - 9

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. 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.

M - 10

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Table M-2

RATING DESCRIPTION

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope of effort and complexity required by this solicitation.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope of effort and complexity required by this solicitation.

Partially Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope of effort and complexity required by this solicitation.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope of effort and complexity required by this solicitation.

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 - 11

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, 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.

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

a. 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, and the likelihood of the risk occurring

b. A risk assessment will be accomplished at the conclusion of the overall evaluation process (i.e., evaluation of Factors 1 through 3). The risk assessment is intended to aid the source selection process by adding more information to the best value determination.

c. The risk assessment will be conducted the TET Lead. Members of the TET who identify potential risks are to communicate those risks to their respective team lead for consideration and inclusion in the assessment. Risks may be identified by any team or evaluator throughout the evaluation process.

d. Risks will be evaluated both as to their potential impact on the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the contract. This analysis will evaluate risks in terms of their potential impact on cost, schedule, and work performance while simultaneously addressing the probability of undesirable impacts. Risks may be identified within any aspect of the Offeror’s proposal, or from any additional sources of information.

M - 12

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:

• BPA Services, Inc.