ATTACHMENT_13_SECTION_M.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION DOCUMENTATION

SECTION M

Evaluation Factors for Award

Table of Contents 1 Awards

1.1 Basis for Contract Awards

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

1.3 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers

1.4 Correction Potential of Proposals

1.5 Solicitation Requirements

1.6 Evaluation Methodology

1.7 Discussions

1.8 Caution to Offerors

2 Technical Evaluation Factor - Volumes IA through ID - Technical Acceptability Factor

2.1 General

2.2 Rating Definitions

2.3 Technical Acceptability Subfactors

3 Volume II – Cost/Price Evaluation Factor

3.1 General

3.2 Balance

3.3 Reasonableness

3.4 Realism

3.5 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

3.6 Professional Employee Compensation Plan

3.7 Approved accounting systems

4 Volume III – Past Performance

4.1 Recency Assessment

4.2 Relevancy Assessment

4.3 Quality Assessment of Past Performance

4.4 Responsibility Determination

5 Pre Award Survey

Tables Table 2-1 Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Table 4-1 Past Performance Evaluation Ratings Table 4-2 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Table 4-3 Past Performance Quality Assessment

1 Awards

1.1 Basis for Contract Awards

This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, Appendix A, 04 March 2011 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 04 May 2011. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the proposal with the lowest evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors.

Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one contract for the T-38C Avionics Component Integration (AvCI) effort. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.3 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

1.4 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider throughout the evaluation the "correction potential" of any proposal. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror's proposal not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.5 Solicitation Requirements

Unless exceptions are identified and supported as stated in this paragraph, the Offeror, by submission of their offer, accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. However, failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined ineligible for award.

1.6 Evaluation Methodology

Technical acceptability will be evaluated on all offers. Only those Offerors determined to have an acceptable technical rating, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. Price will be evaluated and the proposals will be listed from lowest to highest price based on the total evaluated price.

Only those Offerors determined to have an acceptable past performance rating, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award.

Award will be made to the responsive, responsible, lowest evaluated priced proposal meeting the acceptability standards for the non-cost factors.

1.7 Discussions

It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions; therefore, it is imperative that Offerors submit their best terms initially. However, if during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), and the Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

1.8 Caution to Offerors

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, apparent clerical errors) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Exchanges conducted to resolve clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

2 Technical Evaluation Factor - Volumes IA through ID - Technical Acceptability Factor

2.1 General

The technical volume will be evaluated for acceptability in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section. The Offeror’s proposal must convey to the Government that the Offeror is capable, experienced, and is able to plan, organize, and use its technical resources in a coordinated and timely fashion to meet the needs of the Government. The Offeror shall specifically state how that capability will be used for this effort. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to ensure that each technical subfactor listed below sufficiently explains how the Offeror will accomplish the requirements. Each subfactor will be assigned one of the ratings in Table 2-1 of this document. The contractor must be deemed acceptable for all four subfactors in order to be deemed technically acceptable.

2.2 Rating Definitions

Table 2-1 Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Technical Acceptability Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

2.3 Technical Acceptability Subfactors

2.3.1 Subfactor 1: T-38C Component Replacement, Development & Integration.

[Mission Display Processor (MDP) Heads-Up Display (HUD) & Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B) Out]

Reference: The following CLINs and Statement of Objectives

CLINs 1001, 1002, 1003

T-38C Avionics Component Integration Statement of Objectives, Mission Display Processor Replacement & Integration (Attachment 2 of this solicitation).

T-38C Avionics Component Integration Statement of Objectives, Heads-Up Display System Replacement & Integration (Attachment 3 of this solicitation).

T-38C Avionics Component Integration Statement of Objectives, Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast Development & Integration (Attachment 4 of this solicitation).

This subfactor will be evaluated for a realistic and complete approach that demonstrates the contractor’s technical capability. The technical proposal must demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the scope of work required to fully integrate replacement, overhauled, or refurbished MDP and HUD systems. Additionally, the proposal must demonstrate a technical understanding of the scope of work required to develop and integrate an ADS-B Out solution for the T-38C avionics system. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal articulates or includes:

1. Identify the Line Replaceable Unit (LRU) identification information shall clearly indicate the Original Equipment Manufactures (OEM) predicted LRU lifecycle (how long the OEM plans to provide engineering and repair support). The information shall identify:

A. The Original Equipment Manufacturer’s (OEM) predicted last date of production or last production date.

B. The market size of the product (actual and predicted production numbers) C. The OEM predicted lifecycle

D. Department of Defense platforms that currently use the proposed LRUs.

2. Identify the LRU(s) MTBF and explain the derivation procedures used. The MTBF shall meet or exceed the requirements stated in the individual component F3I specifications (ADS-B does not have an F3I specification). (This applies to new, overhauled or refurbished LRU(s))

3. The solution shall outline the system level integration requirements and identify the hardware and software design requirements. Additionally, identify impacts to the current ATD system where applicable. The approach shall minimize impact to the T- 38C cockpit configuration. The ADS-B Out proposal shall meet all requirements of 14 CFR § 91.227 and TSO-C166.

A. The integrated master schedule for the modification cycle shall include design, manufacturing, software development (where applicable), integration and delivery schedule. The schedule shall be realistic in approach and executable.

B. The component or LRU vendor’s design proposal that validates the design and technical competency of the manufacturer

C. The LRU envelope drawings shall meet ASME standards defined in MIL-STD- 31000A.

D. The high-level system integration block diagrams shall validate an understanding of the system architecture and system integration requirements by identifying the component interconnectivity, communication bus interconnectivity and identifying the system high-level signal flow requirements

E. The functional and physical architecture diagrams shall contain information that validates the proposed system meets or exceeds the current system performance identified in the system performance and F3I specifications provided in the bidder’s library. (This applies to new, overhauled or refurbished components.)

F. Procedures or company “Best Practices” shall ensure compliance with AS 9100C Quality Management Systems, AS 9110 Quality Maintenance Systems by referencing compliance with the standards.

2.3.2 Subfactor 2: Block Upgrade Process & Software Applications Support

Reference CLS PWS Section 4, Software Applications Support, Section 7, Block Upgrades and paragraph 5.7 Program Quality Assurance.

This subfactor will be evaluated for an approach that demonstrates technical capability and understanding of the process required to develop, support and sustain the T-38C AvCI program software suite.

The proposal shall demonstrate a comprehensive technical understanding of the software development and support process. Additionally, explain the Offeror’s process to capture and analyze data from the field, determine criticality and perform the required deficiency reporting if warranted. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates or includes:

1. An explanation of software development process including an approach to software design, development and integration. The explanation shall validate an understanding of the scope of the T-38C software support requirements. In addition, identify any vendors that will participate in this effort.

A. An explanation of software development process(es) that identify and explain the standards, procedures, tools and methods that will be used to provide sustainable and repeatable software development and software support for the T-38C software suite.

B. An explanation of the process that will be used to analyze system change requirements and system deficiency information from the system end users.

An explanation of the process that will be used to determine criticality and the process to perform the required reporting procedures when warranted.

C. A detailed explanation of the software engineering methods and procedures that will be used to ensure software development of Operational Flight Program software is monitored and tested to ensure a quality product is delivered. If applicable, provide Industry-Level certifications.

2. A documented software development process, including an approach to software design, development and integration to support the T-38C Aircrew Training Device (ATD) system. Additionally, identify the vendors that will participate in the development and sustainment of the T-38C ATD software.

A. An explanation of the software development process(es) that identify and explain the standards, procedures, tools and methods that will be used to provide sustainable and repeatable software development and software support for the T-38C software suite.

B. An explanation of the process that will be used to analyze system change requirements and system deficiency information from the field. Explain the process that will be used to determine criticality and perform the required reporting procedures when warranted.

C. A detailed explanation of the software engineering methods and procedures used to ensure software development of ATD software is monitored and tested to ensure a quality product is delivered. Additionally, industry-level certifications that identify that processes are industry accepted and validated.

2.3.3 Subfactor 3: Program Management and Contractor Logistics Support (CLS)

Reference PWS Section 3, Program Requirements and Section 5, Systems Engineering

This subfactor will be evaluated for a realistic, reasonable, and complete approach. The proposal shall demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the management processes required to provide avionics system support and meet the avionics systems metrics. The evaluation process will consider technical capability, management processes, supply chain management, risk avoidance and mitigation, and quality assurance processes. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates or includes:

1. An explanation of the support structure and processes that will provide responsive, consistent, and reliable support to the T-38 SPO, T-38C flying and pilot training operations that will ensure program metrics are met.

2. A thorough explanation and description of supply chain management processes that would be used for forecasting, demand planning, and inventory control to maintain supply availability.

3. A complete description of risk management processes, explaining the criteria, methods, and procedures that would be used to identify the critical items associated with modification management and software development.

4. A thorough explanation of the methods that would be used to implement, verify and maintain a viable and responsive Quality Assurance Program. Outline quality standards and identify surveillance procedures that would be used to ensure quality is maintained to support program metrics. Additionally, identify the repair stations that will be used, OEM, FAA certified, or contractor-certified repair facility. Provide the 14 CFR Part 145 Repair Station Certificate number or explain the Offeror’s certification process of the facility to ensure quality standards are met in accordance with CLS PWS paragraph 5.7.1 and parts are repaired or replace in accordance with CLS PWS paragraphs 3.10.3 and 3.15.4.

5. Explain the processes and procedures that will be used to account for and maintain Government Furnished Property and Equipment that is compliant with Government standards

6. CLS Program Transition

The Government’s evaluation of this subfactor will focus on the Offeror’s transition strategy and how well it meets or exceeds the CLS PWS requirements to transfer responsibilities from the incumbent while demonstrating with detailed evidence the full capability and experience it’s team possesses for performing transition efforts, including exit criteria, on a noninterference basis. The proposed approach must be sound, feasible, effective, and clearly demonstrate the use of the approach (process or methodologies) and capabilities for successfully transitioning efforts of similar magnitude and complexity and how it applies to the PWS requirements in the following areas:

A. Schedule

B. GFP

C. Data Rights D. Sustainment Tasks E. Facilities F. Risk Identification and Mitigation

7. Subcontracting Plan and Small Business Participation

The Small Business element is considered to be acceptable when the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan clearly demonstrates the course of action to meet the requirements of the Small Business Subcontracting goals as defined in the H-133, Small Business Subcontracting Requirements Clause. The Small Business Participation Plan is not to be confused with Small Business Subcontracting Plan. All Offerors will be evaluated on their Small Business Participation Plan. The evaluation of the Small Business Participation Plan will also include the following:

A. The extent to which such firms are specifically identified in proposals B. The extent of commitment to use such firms

2.3.4 Subfactor 4: Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) Supportability and Sustainment

Reference PWS paragraph 5.10, Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) Program Management

This subfactor will be evaluated for a realistic, reasonable, and complete approach. The explanation shall demonstrate a technical understanding of the scope of work required to manage all aspects of the T-38C Avionics System DMSMS program. The evaluation process will consider technical capability, processes and procedures used to identify risk and implement a risk mitigation plan. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates or includes:

1. Demonstration of a clear and concise understanding of DMSMS management relevant to supporting the T-38C Avionics System and maintaining system supportability and metrics. The Offeror shall explain in sufficient detail processes that will be used to plan for managing the loss, or impending loss, of manufacturers or suppliers of parts or material required for performance of this contract. The explanation shall address:

A. Explain the means and approach for providing the Government with information regarding T-38C avionics system obsolescence and DMSMS issues

B. Describe how parts list screening & parts list monitoring will be accomplished C. Explain the Offerors process for receiving, processing and disseminating

Government-Industry Data Exchange Program (GIDEP) DMSMS Notices D. Explain the Offerors process for receiving, processing and disseminating

Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) DMSMS Alerts E. Explain how the Offeror will document and provide critical DMSMS information to the Government F. Explain the approach that will be used to establish and develop solutions to impending obsolescence and DMSMS

3 Volume II – Cost/Price Evaluation Factor

3.1 General

The Government will evaluate all Offeror’s cost/price proposals on the criteria of Balance, Reasonableness, and Realism (on selected portions of the offer as defined below), and shall rank all technically acceptable offers by total evaluated price (TEP), including option prices.

Inclusion of the option prices will not bind the government to the exercise of those options.

3.2 Balance

The Government may determine a proposal unacceptable if the proposed prices be materially unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques.

3.3 Reasonableness

The proposed CLIN prices, The Schedule, Section B, and all labor rates in the Section J, Attachment 3, FFP Labor Rates worksheet, will be evaluated for reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it shall represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market.

Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

3.4 Realism

All cost type CLINs (X015, X021) that are not otherwise normalized will be evaluated for Realism IAW FAR 15.404-1. It is anticipated that the same burdened base rates (less profit or fee) for all cost type rates will be identical to the fixed price type rates in the Labor Rate Matrix. This is anticipated to satisfy the realism evaluation for these labor rates. If this is not the case or the Government feels it needs further information to support price realism the Government reserves the right to request further information.

3.5 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The Government will calculate the TEP as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed prices for the base period and all option years.

1. FFP CLINs (X003, X004) will be evaluated at a single Offeror’s proposed price for a government selected year. The year the government will select will not be disclosed to the Offerors before award.

2. CPFF CLIN (X010) will be evaluated at a government generated Not to Exceed amount of $1,000,000 plus an Offeror proposed fee percentage.

3. FFP CLINs (X001, X002, X005, X006, X007, X009, X011, X012, X013, X023, X024 & X025) will be evaluated at the proposed fixed prices multiplied by specified quantities for the base and all option years.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/31.htm

4. FFP CLINs (X014, X016, X017, X020) will be evaluated per the Offeror’s proposed rates plus profit in Section J Attachment 6, Labor Rate Matrix multiplied by government generated notional hours and labor mix for all years of the contract. The hour and labor mix will be the government’s best estimation of the labor costs to be incurred under these CLINs. Neither the hours nor the labor mix will be disclosed to the Offerors at any time.

5. CPFF CLINs (X015, X021) shall be evaluated per the government evaluated rates plus proposed fee in Section J Attachment 6, Labor Rate Matrix multiplied by government generated notional hours and labor mix for all years of the contract. The hour and labor mix will be the government’s best estimation of the labor costs to be incurred under these CLINs. Neither the hours nor the labor mix will be disclosed to the Offerors at any time.

6. CR CLINs (X008, X018, X019, X022) will not be evaluated as part of the TEP and will be normalized at $0 for the purposes of this TEP. These CLINs will be exercised at the government’s direction and the Government will verify that all associated costs are reasonable and billed in accordance with FAR 31, Contract Cost Principles and Procedures at the time they are incurred.

7. NSP CLIN (X026) will not be directly evaluated as part of this TEP as costs for this CLIN are assumed to be included in the other CLINs.

3.6 Professional Employee Compensation Plan

Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees: In accordance with FAR 52.222-46, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Professional Employee Compensation Plan to ensure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements and allows the Offeror to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives. Base labor rates, fringe, and overall benefits will be evaluated and compared against current standards. Lowered compensation for essentially the same professional work may impair the Offeror’s ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees. This may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements which may lead to rejection of the proposal.

3.7 Approved accounting systems

The government will evaluate whether the Offeror has a government approved accounting system. Failure to possess or obtain government approval of the accounting system may result in disqualification from award. If the Offeror does not currently have government approval of its accounting system, it may be subject to a Pre-Award Survey as defined in section 5.0

4 Volume III – Past Performance

Past performance shall be used as an evaluation factor. It shall be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305 and DFARS 215.305. However, the comparative assessment in FAR 15.305(a)(2)(i) does not apply. Therefore, past performance will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis using the ratings in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1 Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

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

Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability or unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

The contracting Officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on all Offerors based on: (1) The past efforts provided by the Offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other Government (such as MOCAS, CPARS) and commercial sources.

4.1 Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent.

To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three

(3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be included in the assessment.

4.2 Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided or services performed under those contracts relate to the technical subfactors and the Cost/Price factor.

For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will be assessed for the technical subfactors and Cost/Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/dfars/dfars215.htm performing or having performed similar services and hardware or software modifications for similar avionics systems. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made, and a rating from Table 4-2 assigned, based upon the aforementioned considerations.

In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information provided in Volume IV and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish relevancy of past performance.

Consideration shall be given to the aspects of an Offeror’s contract history that give the most confidence that the Offeror will satisfy the AvCI effort.

Table 4-2 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

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

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

4.3 Quality Assessment of Past Performance

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the Offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports an unsatisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/dfars/Dfars215.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_215.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_215.htm

Table 3-3 Past Performance Quality Assessment

PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Quality Assessment/Color Description

SATISFACTORY (S)/GREEN During the contract period, contractor performance is substantially meeting (or substantially met) contract requirements.

For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

UNSATISFACTORY(U)/RED During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements.

For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented.

Customer involvement was required.

NOT AVAILABLE(N)/WHITE Quality and/or performance information is not available.

4.4 Responsibility Determination

Any unsatisfactory rating given to a small business will be referred to the Small Business Administration pursuant to FAR 15.101-2(b) and 19.6 for resolution.

5 Pre Award Survey

The Government may conduct a Pre-Award Survey (PAS) as part of this source selection.

Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine each Offeror's capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.