FENS SIR - Section M - Amendment 8.docx

693KA8-20-R-00022, Amendment 85

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

AMS Clauses and Provisions Incorporated by Reference

AMS 3.1-1 Clauses and Provisions Incorporated by Reference (July 2019) This screening information request (SIR) or contract, as applicable, incorporates by reference the provisions or clauses listed below with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer (CO) will make the full text available, or offerors and contractors may obtain the full text via Internet at: https://fast.faa.gov/contractclauses.cfm.

Eligibility for Award To be eligible for award, the prospective contractor must be determined to be responsible in accordance with Acquisition Management Policy 3.2.2.2, i.e.:

· Has or can obtain adequate financial resources to perform a contract;

· Has the ability to meet any required or proposed delivery schedules;

· Has a satisfactory performance history;

· Has a satisfactory record of integrity and proper business ethics;

· Has appropriate accounting and operational controls that may include, but are not limited to: production control, property control systems, quality assurance programs, and appropriate safety programs; and

· Is qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws or regulations.

To assist in this determination, the Government reserves the right to conduct a pre-award survey of any offeror, or offeror’s subcontractor(s), if deemed necessary by the CO. If a pre-award survey is conducted, it does not necessarily mean that an offeror has been selected for award.

To be eligible for award, proposals must be submitted in accordance with Section L, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors, and must conform to all the terms and conditions of the SIR. Submittals must be complete, accurate, and contain the offeror’s best cost/price and technical terms. Offerors may be found ineligible for award if their proposals fail to conform to all terms and conditions of the SIR. However, the Government 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 Government to do so.

Proposals that fail to meet the requirements of the SIR or are unrealistic in terms of technical content or schedule commitments may result in the offeror being assessed as lacking technical competence or failing to comprehend the technical complexity and risks of the contract requirements. Therefore, the Government reserves the right to determine such proposals to be ineligible for further evaluation and for contract award.

Offerors are cautioned not to minimize the importance of an adequate response in any area because of importance or visibility. Offerors must furnish specific information in their response in accordance with Section L. If at any time during the evaluation process the Government concludes that an offeror is not likely to receive award, the Government may eliminate the offeror from further consideration for award. Any offeror eliminated from further consideration will be notified in writing by the CO.

The CO will assess each offeror’s identification of potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCIs) and the associated OCI Mitigation Plan as acceptable or unacceptable. The Government reserves the right not to award a contract to any offeror determined to have an unacceptable OCI Mitigation Plan or determined to not have adequately identified potential OCIs.

Basis for Award A “Best Value” approach will be used as the basis for selecting an offeror for award. Best Value describes the solution that is the most advantageous to the Government based on the evaluation factors and their order of importance, as defined in Section M.4. This approach provides the opportunity for a trade-off of the evaluation results for non-price factors (Technical/Management and Past Performance) and the Price evaluation results in accordance with the Section M evaluation criteria. The offeror that receives the highest Technical/Management Factor rating or the offeror with the lowest Most Probable Total Price (as defined in Section M.7.3.1) may not be determined to have submitted the Best Value offer. The Government Source Evaluation Team, Source Evaluation Board (SEB), and the Source Selection Official (SSO) will strive for maximum objectivity; however, the source selection process is, by nature, subjective and judgment will be applied throughout the entire process.

The Government intends to award one contract but reserves the right to award multiple contracts or no contract as a result of this SIR. Only offerors meeting the eligibility criteria defined in Section M.2 will be considered in the Best Value assessment.

Evaluation Order of Importance The Technical/Management Factor is more important than the Past Performance Factor which is more important than the Price Factor. As the difference between offerors in the Technical/Management and Past Performance evaluation results decreases, the Price evaluation results will become more important in the Best Value trade-off.

The Small Business Subcontracting Plan evaluation results are used to establish the offeror’s commitment to the participation of Small Businesses under the FENS contract; they are not factored into the Best Value trade-off. In addition, Volume V (Miscellaneous) is not evaluated so it is not factored into the Best Value trade-off.

Within Technical/Management evaluation, the sub-factor order of importance is depicted by Figure M-1.

Figure M-1: Order of Importance of Technical/Management Sub-factors

Sub-factors 1, 2, 4, and 6 collectively are more important than Sub-factors 3, 5, and 7 collectively. Sub-factors 1, 2, 4, and 6 are of equal importance to each other and are individually more important than Sub-factors 3, 5, and 7 individually. In addition, Sub-factors 3, 5, and 7 are of equal importance to each other. Individual elements within each sub-factor are of equal importance to each other.

Within the Past Performance evaluation, there are two Pre-conditions and Applicability criteria (defined in Section M.7.2.2) that must be met for the Past Performance References to be evaluated relative to the five Past Performance sub-factors that are of equal importance relative to each other.

Communications with Offerors In accordance with AMS Policy Section 3.2.2.3.1.2.2, Communications with Offerors, the purpose of communications is to ensure mutual understanding between the FAA and offerors about all aspects of the procurement, including the offerors' submittals/proposals. Communications with offerors may take place throughout the source selection process, through contract award, and following award as necessary.

Offeror responses to Communication Items may be considered in the evaluation of an offeror’s proposal and serve as the basis for strengths, weaknesses, or risks. The Government reserves the right to allow offerors to revise their proposals in response to Communications. Communications may necessitate changes in the Government’s requirements or SIR. Where communications do not result in any changes in the Government’s requirements or SIR, the Government is not required to request or accept offeror revisions.

The Government may hold one-on-one meetings with individual offerors as it pertains to their offers. One-on-one communications may continue throughout the process at the Government’s discretion. Communications with one offeror do not necessitate communications with other offerors.

Before the Government has made the best value determination, the SEB will recommend the offeror that is most likely to receive award and assess, based upon its judgment, whether or not to recommend negotiations with that offeror. If the SEB recommends negotiations with that offeror and the SSO concurs that negotiations should occur, the CO will conduct the negotiations with the selected offeror. Such negotiations are not limited to communications for the purpose of mutual understanding; the Government may also request changes to the offeror’s proposal to make its terms more favorable to the Government. Changes may affect prices or any other aspect of a proposal, as allowed by the Government. Upon completion of such negotiations with an offeror, if conducted, the CO will advise the SEB of any proposal changes resulting from negotiations for consideration in the SEB’s best value assessment and recommendation for award to the SSO. Offerors’ rankings may change as a result of negotiations. The Government’s best value analysis may consider negotiated revised proposal(s) against any other offerors’ proposals, whether or not those proposals were revised or were subject to negotiations. If the SEB does not assess the offeror selected for negotiation as the best value recommendation, the Government may select another competing offeror for communications and negotiations as described above, without issuance of further SIRs, SIR amendments, or notice to the other competing offerors.

All communications between the Government and offerors must be through the CO or individuals designated by the CO in writing. Offeror’s must submit written communications via the Government-provided OCP described in Section L.3.

Evaluation Approach The volumes of each offeror’s proposal will first be reviewed to determine whether they follow the instructions provided in Section L and include all of the required information. Omission of information or proposals that do not fully conform to Section L requirements may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from award consideration.

The Government reserves the right to award a contract from the initial submissions without communications; therefore, offerors are cautioned that their initial proposals should contain the best terms they intend to offer.

Technical/Management Evaluation Evaluators will identify strengths, weaknesses, and risks relative to the Technical/Management Factor evaluation criteria defined in Section M.7.1. Offerors’ written proposals including the Sample Problem Written Narrative Response; responses to oral and written communications items; Oral Presentations (as described in Section L.8), inclusive of the Oral Presentation Slides and oral statements made during the presentations; and any optional demonstrations provided during an Oral Presentation will serve as the basis for the identification of strengths, weaknesses, and risks. Technical/Management evaluators will review “Technical Bases of Estimate (BOEs)” submitted per the instructions in Section L.14.3.4 and information contained within the Technical BOEs may also serve as the basis for the identification of strengths, weaknesses, and risks. The Government may also refer to the video of the Oral Presentations and any optional demonstrations provided during an Oral Presentation at any point during the evaluation process for purposes of clarification or improved understanding.

If the Government identifies a specific aspect of a written proposal that is assessed as strength and the same aspect is observed within the Oral Presentation (including any demonstrated capabilities) or the response to a communication item, it will be documented as a single strength rather than multiple strengths. The same approach will be applied in the assessment of weaknesses and risks. While the Oral Presentation and any optional demonstrations provided during an Oral Presentation may be considered in the identification of strengths, weaknesses, and risks, the Oral Presentation and any optional demonstrations are not separately evaluated or rated.

The definitions of strength, weakness, and risk are listed in Table M-1.The Government will identify strengths, weaknesses, and risks for Sub-factors 1-6 on the basis of information presented in the written proposal, communications, Oral Presentations, and/or optional demonstrations of the proposed solutions in Volume I. The Government will identify strengths, weaknesses, and risks for Sub-factor 7 on the basis of the Sample Problem Response inclusive of information presented in the Sample Problem Written Narrative Response, the Oral Presentation of the sample problem response, and any optional demonstration of the sample problem response.

Table M-1: Definitions of Strength, Weakness, and Risk

Strength An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has a positive impact on the probability of successful performance of the resulting contract.

Based upon their assessment of the impact of all identified strengths, weaknesses, and risks, the evaluators will assign adjectival ratings to the associated element according to the Adjectival Rating Definitions in Table M-2. The range of adjectival ratings and their definitions are listed in Table M-2.

Table M-2: Adjectival Ratings for Technical/Management Factor Evaluation

If no strengths, weaknesses, or risks are identified with respect to a rated element or sub-factor, the offeror will receive a Satisfactory rating for that element or sub-factor. If one or more strengths are identified and no weaknesses or risks are identified, the Government will assess the magnitude of the impact of the identified strength(s) and apply its judgment in whether to assign a Good or Excellent rating. Similarly, if one or more weaknesses or risks are identified and no strengths are identified, the Government will assess the magnitude of the impact of the identified weakness(es) and risk(s) and apply its judgment in whether to assign a Marginal or Unsatisfactory rating.

The element ratings will serve as the basis for the associated sub-factor ratings. Each offeror’s Technical/Management factor-level rating (from Table M-2) will be assigned based on the sub-factor ratings and their order of importance by the Government using its professional judgment.

Past Performance Evaluation The Government will evaluate each offeror’s Past Performance record and assign a confidence rating based on the definitions in Section M.7.2. The confidence rating represents the Government’s assessment of the likelihood of an offeror’s successful performance under the FENS contract based its record of Past Performance.

Price Evaluation The Government will evaluate Volume IV (Price Proposal) in terms of the MPTP and a Price Risk Rating, as defined in Table M-9. The Price Risk Rating will be based upon an assessment of the Price Proposal in terms of Reasonableness, Realism, Balance, Technical Consistency, and Sensitivity.

Small Business Subcontracting Plan Evaluation The Government will evaluate each offeror’s strategy for utilizing Small, Small Disadvantaged, Women-Owned, and Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business concerns, as well as its consistency with their proposed Small Business Subcontract Management Approach. The Government will evaluate whether the offeror’s proposal meets socioeconomic goals as identified in the SIR. If the offeror’s proposal does not meet socioeconomic goals as identified in the SIR, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s rationale and approach to meet these socioeconomic goals as the contract proceeds. An adjectival rating, per the definitions in Table M-10, will be assigned to each offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Evaluation Criteria

Technical/Management Factor Evaluation Criteria The Technical/Management Factor will be evaluated based on the sub-factors, elements, and the associated evaluation criteria identified below.

Sub-factor 1 – Technical Architecture Sub-factor 1 evaluates the degree to which each offeror’s proposed technical architecture meets the requirements of FENS Functional and Performance Specification (FFPS), Attachment J-1, to provide the required Communications Services and Enterprise-Level Functions in order to achieve the FENS Program Objectives identified in Attachment J-0, Section 6. There are six elements comprising Sub-factor 1, which are outlined below.

Element 1.1 – Network Design The Government will evaluate:

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed architecture – inclusive of Customer Premise Equipment (CPE), access, and transport – meets the performance requirements defined in FFPS Sections 3.1 and 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 for Network Services (as defined in FFPS Section 1.2).

· For Network Services, the degree to which the offeror’s proposed architecture provides the required interfaces defined in FFPS Section 3.7 and meets the Service Interface Performance requirements and Service Flow Performance requirements in FFPS Sections 3.8 and 3.9, respectively.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed architecture supporting Network Services meets the environmental requirements in FFPS Section 9.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed architecture meets the associated functional and performance requirements defined in FFPS Section 5.2 for Enterprise Synchronization Services and FFPS Section 5.3 for the Domain Name System (DNS) capabilities.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed architecture supports the scope and magnitude of Network Service requirements listed in the FENS Sample Traffic Model (FSTM), Attachment J-5a.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed architecture has a demonstrated record of successful implementation to provide the required services, functions, and capabilities in Safety-critical Environments as defined in FFPS Section 1.2.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed architecture has a demonstrated record of successful implementation for networks comparable to or greater than FENS relative to the number of sites, services, and geographic scope.

Element 1.2 – Information Management Services (IMS) Architecture The Government will evaluate:

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed architecture meets the required availability levels, latency levels, and message loss levels for Layer 7 IMS, as defined in FFPS Section 5.5.1.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed IMS architecture supports the required connection types and messaging protocols identified in FFPS Section 4.2 and the scope of IMS requirements (e.g., producers, consumers, etc.) listed in the FSTM.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed IMS architecture is well-integrated with the FENS Edge Protection and External Boundary Protection (EBP) capabilities defined in FFPS Section 8.

· The degree to which the proposed IMS architecture makes efficient use of capacity and resources at Layers 1/2/3 of the FENS network.

Element 1.3 – Operational Support System (OSS) Architecture The Government will evaluate:

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed OSS architecture supports the required Network Operations functions defined in FFPS Section 7.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed OSS architecture supports the required Security Status Monitoring, Reporting, and Event Management functions defined in FFPS Section 8.7.

· The degree to which the offeror's proposed OSS architecture supports the required interfaces specified in attachments J-8a through J-8g.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed OSS architecture processes and responds to requests initiated by authorized Government users of the Business Operations Function of the FAA User Portal defined in FFPS Section 6.1.2.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed OSS architecture is well-aligned with and supports the proposed concept of operations (CONOPS) for the monitoring, management, and control of the FENS network.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed OSS architecture is well-aligned with and supports the proposed CONOPS for preventing, detecting, analyzing, and responding to cybersecurity incidents.

Element 1.4 – Information Security The Government will evaluate:

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed architecture for FENS Communications Services, Enterprise-Level Functions, and FENS User Portals complies with the information security requirements listed in FFPS Section 8 and the tailored security controls in attachments J-7a and J-7b.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed architecture for the FENS Network Operations Center (NOC), Security Operations Center (SOC), and underlying OSS complies with the applicable tailored security controls defined in attachments J-7a and J-7b.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed Edge Protection solution meets the requirements defined in FFPS Sections 8.3.2 and 8.3.4.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed security capabilities and functions protect FAA systems and user data flows from a wide range of possible cybersecurity attacks in accordance with FFPS Sections 8.3.1 and 8.3.3.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed architecture complies with the network isolation requirements listed in FFPS Section 8.4.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed EBP solution meets the requirements in FFPS Sections 8.5.1 and 8.5.2 and supports current and future usage demands with respect to the number of connections and data throughpout.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed solutions for secure remote access meet the requirements defined in FFPS Sections 8.5.3 and 8.5.4.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed network and OSS architectures meet the integrity requirements defined in FFPS Section 8.6.

· The degree to which security capabilities and controls are established and maintained during the FENS network establishment.

Element 1.5 – Flexibility, Scalability, and Network Evolution The Government will evaluate:

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed architecture is sufficiently flexible and scalable to meet future services needs and traffic volumes with minimal disruption of ongoing operations and minimal impact to the FAA resources.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed IMS architecture is sufficiently flexible and scalable to meet future service needs and traffic volumes with minimal disruption of ongoing operations and minimal impact to the FAA resources.

· The degree to which the offeror’s architecture proactively mitigates impacts caused by the discontinuance of Time-Division Multiplexing (TDM)-based access solutions.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed architecture: (1) supports the FAA’s transition to Internet Protocol (IP) interfaces; and (2) supports or can evolve to support the FAA Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) vision and future CONOPS for the National Airspace System (NAS) as referenced in Attachment J-0.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed architecture supports additional Network Service Flow Performance Levels not listed in FFPS Table 4-1 and additional Interface Types not listed in FFPS Table 3-6 in a manner that minimizes impacts to ongoing operations and FAA resources.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed architecture facilitates the implementation of new capabilities over the program life cycle relative to potential new service flow types for Network Services over the program life cycle with minimal disruption of ongoing operations and minimal impact to FAA resources.

· Degree to which the offeror’s proposed IMS architecture is flexible and scalable to evolve IMS information sharing services, protocols, and capabilities over the life of the contract including, but not limited to the possible IMS enhancements described in FFPS Section 4.2.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed architecture increases the likelihood that the FENS network will keep pace with technology changes in the commercial marketplace over the contract period of performance.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed architecture is sufficiently flexible and scalable to support FAA requirements for Burstable and Scalable Bandwidth (FFPS Sections 5.1.4 and 5.1.5, respectively) and Contingency Services (FFPS Section 5.9).

Element 1.6 – Resiliency, Survivability, Network Diversity, and Avoidance The Government will evaluate:

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed architecture – inclusive of CPE, access, and transport – is sufficiently resilient to withstand component-level failures and prevent disruption to FENS Communications Services.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed architecture provides Network Diversity in accordance with FFPS Section 3.1.5 to meet the required availability of AV-1, AV-2, and AV-3 services.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed architecture provides Network Diversity in accordance with FFPS Section 3.1.5 for Avoided Service Pairs and meets the associated availability requirements.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed architecture makes effective use of Network Diversity and meets the Survivability requirements defined in FFPS Section 3.2.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed architecture provides protection against events that, while having a low probability of occurrence, could have facility-wide impacts or result in a Widespread Service Failure, as defined in FFPS Section 1.2. This evaluation criterion will consider both the extent of the protection against such events as well as the range of the different types of events for which protection is provided.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed solution for Enterprise Synchronization Services: (1) is sufficiently resilient to withstand component-level failures and prevent disruption to FENS Network Services; and (2) aligns with the resilience and reliability constructs described in the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) Best Practices: Improving the Operation and Development of Global Positioning System (GPS) Equipment Used by Critical Infrastructure; and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) publication, Time Guidance for Network Operators, Chief Information Officers, and Chief Information Security Officers.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed solution for DNS capability is sufficiently resilient to withstand component-level failures and prevent disruption to FENS Network Services.

Sub-factor 2 – Network Establishment and Life Cycle Support Sub-factor 2 evaluates the degree to which each offeror’s proposed approach to network establishment and life cycle support meets the requirements of the FENS Statement of Work (SOW), in order to achieve the FENS Program Objectives identified in Attachment J-0, Section 6. There are four elements comprising Sub-factor 2, which are outlined below.

Element 2.1 – Test and Evaluation The Government will evaluate:

· The degree to which the offeror proposes a sound and effective approach for developing test plans and managing test and evaluation-related events, activities, and milestones within the scope of SOW Paragraph C.4.2.6 that increases the likelihood for successful test outcomes within the planned schedule.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed test approaches and strategy for evaluating proposed services relative to FENS requirements increase the likelihood of successful test outcomes within the planned schedule for all facets of Contractor-conducted testing (as defined in SOW Paragraph C.4.2.6 and its sub-paragraphs) and adequately addresses: (1) use of test tools; (2) the ability to provide flexibility and automation of test methods in the field; and (3) effective and efficient use of Government resources.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed test approaches for Site Acceptance and Service Acceptance Testing as required by SOW Paragraphs C.4.2.6.6 and C.4.2.6.7 and Section E, Inspection and Acceptance, Section E.3 facilitate effective use of Government and Contractor resources while providing the assurance that implementations of FENS infrastructure and services meet applicable requirements in FFPS Sections 3 and 4.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed test environment will yield accurate and operationally realistic conditions and loads for each Contractor-conducted test activity, as defined in SOW Paragraph C.4.2.6 and its sub-paragraphs.

· The degree to which the offeror proposes a realistic and effective approach to introduce, qualify, and validate new capabilities and services.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed test environment and approach has a demonstrated record of successful implementation to complete the required testing of services, functions, and capabilities in Safety-critical Environments.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed test environment and approach has a demonstrated record of successful implementation to complete the required testing of services, functions, and capabilities for networks comparable to or greater than FENS relative to the number of sites, services, and geographic scope.

Element 2.2 – Transition Approach The Government will evaluate:

· The degree to which the offeror proposes a sound, comprehensive, and collaborative approach for the implementation of the FENS network and transition of applicable legacy services that aligns with its proposed technical architecture and complies with the transition constraints defined in the FENS Transition Constraints (Attachment J-4) across all aspects of the transition.

· The degree to which the offeror proposes a sound and comprehensive schedule for the implementation of the FENS network and transition of applicable legacy services which: (1) is realistic and achievable; (2) covers the period of time from contract award through implementation of all sites and services identified in the FSTM; (3) minimizes the period of parallel operations between FENS and applicable legacy networks; (4) includes key milestones, activities, and deliverables; and (5) includes the proposed quantities and types of site and service transitions over time.

· The degree to which the offeror demonstrates that it has sufficient resources to successfully execute its proposed implementation and transition approach.

· The degree to which the offeror demonstrates that its implementation and transition activities will be effectively organized and managed to execute its proposed implementation and transition approach and ensure: (1) effective use of both Government and Contractor personnel resources; (2) availability of the proposed personnel resources; and (3) adequate training of personnel.

· The degree to which the offeror possesses experience working with commercial communications service providers to implement and transition network infrastructure and communications services in safety critical environments that are comparable to FENS in scope.

· The degree to which the offeror demonstrates a sound and effective approach to risk management and mitigation as it pertains to their implementation and transition approach, including how it will minimize impacts to FAA operations.

[Note: The proposed schedule required under this Element must be based upon the offeror’s assessment of the: (1) optimal approach to implement the proposed technical architecture; (2) technical complexity of transitioning specific services and enterprise-level functions; (3) achievable rates of transition based on proposed implementation resources; and (4) potential risks to FAA operations. The schedule of service implementations provided by the Government in the FENS Sample Traffic Model (Attachment J-5a) is purely notional; it is used to standardize the timeframes when charges are incorporated into the Total Evaluated Price (as defined in L.14.3.2 and M.7.3.1) and it should not influence the offeror’s proposed schedule for the Technical/Management Proposal submission.] Element 2.3 – Network Engineering The Government will evaluate:

· The degree to which the offeror proposes a sound and effective approach to perform the required functions pertaining to Requirements Reviews and Solution Reviews, as defined in SOW Paragraphs C.4.2.3.1 and C.4.2.3.3, respectively.

· The degree to which the offeror proposes a sound and effective approach to perform communications network planning and engineering activities defined in SOW Paragraph C.4.2.4 and its sub-paragraphs, inclusive of the effectiveness of the proposed approach to address technology discontinuance.

· The degree to which the offeror proposes a sound and effective approach to provide Network Diversity and Avoidance (as defined in FFPS 1.2) at service delivery location(s) upon the Government’s request, including scenarios where Network Diversity does not already exist at the location(s).

· The degree to which the offeror proposes a sound and effective approach to identify and track potential network capacity shortfalls (including equipment, space, and power needs) as required by SOW Paragraph C.4.2.4.

· The degree to which the offeror proposes a sound and effective approach to IP Address Management, as required by SOW Paragraph C.4.2.4.4.

· The degree to which the offeror proposes a sound and effective approach to FENS security engineering, to include achievement of the FENS security authorization initially, on an annual recurring basis, and when major changes are made to the network.

· The degree to which the offeror proposes sound and effective engineering approaches to meet the requirements within SOW Paragraph C.4.2.4 specific to: (1) system safety; (2) contingency planning; (3) resiliency; and (4) survivability.

Element 2.4 – Service Provisioning, Activation, and Operational Support The Government will evaluate:

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed approach to service provisioning, activation, and operational support (as detailed in SOW Paragraph C.4.2.8) ensures the Government’s service needs will be met and adequately addresses: (1) their process for accepting service orders from the Government; (2) how they will interact with Network Access Bandwidth Service Providers and Network Transport Service Providers; and (3) how the approach will address moves, adds, and changes.

· The degree to which the offeror proposes a flexible and scalable approach and demonstrates the ability to accommodate month-to-month fluctuations in service order volumes and service provisioning workload.

· The degree to which the offeror proposes a sound and effective approach for on-ramping IMS producers and consumers per the requirements in SOW Paragraph C.4.2.8.2.

· The degree to which the offeror proposes a sound and effective approach for integrating Enterprise-level Functions on a per-service basis as required by SOW Paragraph C.4.2.8.

· The degree to which the offeror substantiates its ability to meet any proposed accelerated service delivery and completion timeframes, as indicated in Section F, Deliveries or Performance, Sections F.5.3.1.1 through F.5.3.1.3 and Table F.5.3-3.

· The degree to which the offeror proposes a sound and effective approach for applying the required security capabilities inclusive of Edge Protection and EBP, as outlined in FFPS Sections 8.3.2 and 8.5.1, respectively.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed approach to service provisioning, activation, and operational support has a demonstrated record of successful implementation of services in Safety-critical Environments.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed approach to service provisioning, activation, and operational support has a demonstrated record of successful implementation for networks comparable to or greater than FENS relative to the number of sites, services, and geographic scope.

Sub-factor 3 – Program Management Sub-factor 3 evaluates the degree to which each offeror’s proposed approach to managing the complete scope of the efforts performed under the FENS contract meets the requirements of FENS SOW, in order to achieve the FENS Program Objectives identified in Attachment J-0, Section 6. There are three elements comprising Sub-factor 3, which are outlined below.

Element 3.1 – Program Management Organization and Approach The Government will evaluate:

· The degree to which the offeror proposes a program management organization that will effectively oversee the required work efforts to be performed under the FENS contract as defined in SOW Paragraph C.4.2.2 and facilitate collaboration with the Government.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed program management approach including methodologies, corporate best practices, and supporting tools will facilitate effective management and delivery of the required services identified in the FENS SOW.

Element 3.2 – Team Roles and Responsibilities The Government will evaluate:

· The degree to which the proposed allocation of team member roles and responsibilities are well-defined, allocated to the full scope of the FENS SOW, and conducive to successful performance of the FENS contract.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed Key Personnel possess the expertise, experience, and qualifications necessary to successfully accomplish the responsibilities of their respective positions, as described in Section H, Special Contract Requirements, Clause H.2.

Element 3.3 – Supply Chain Management The Government will evaluate:

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed approach to Supply Chain Management meets the requirements defined in SOW Paragraph C.4.2.2.1 and minimizes the likelihood of disruption to the FENS supply chain.

· The degree to which the offeror proposes an effective approach and processes for: (1) establishing and maintaining supplier agreements and relationships in accordance with Clause H.14; and (2) managing team members and their activities to support the timely delivery of services and meet FENS-specific requirements throughout the FENS life cycle.

· The degree to which the offeror’s teaming relationships will be formalized by signed agreements and reflect flow-down FENS-specific requirements.

· The degree to which the offeror proposes effective and comprehensive Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM)-specific processes, procedures, and practices used to identify, assess, and mitigate Information and Communications Technology (ICT) supply chain risks across all members and levels of its FENS team organization.

Sub-factor 4 – Operations Sub-factor 4 evaluates the degree to which each offeror’s proposed approach to operating and maintaining the FENS network infrastructure, Enterprise-level Functions, and individual Communications Services meets the requirements of the FENS SOW, in order to achieve the FENS Program Objectives identified in Attachment J-0, Section 6. There are four elements comprising Sub-factor 4, which are outlined below.

Element 4.1 – Operations and Maintenance Approach The Government will evaluate:

· The degree to which the offeror proposes a sound and effective approach to performing the required Operations Management functions, as defined in SOW Paragraph C.4.2.11, to ensure the applicable reliability, maintainability, and availability requirements are met.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed operations and maintenance approach to performing the scope of actions in SOW Paragraphs C.4.2.11.3 and C.4.2.11.4 ensures that no service impacting maintenance actions are taken without prior coordination with Government-designated points of contact.

· The degree to which the offeror demonstrates that it has sufficient resources within its NOC function and field workforce and they are adequately qualified per the requirements in SOW Paragraph C.4.2.11.1 to execute: (1) the proposed maintenance and operations approach for FENS; (2) well-defined and effective service restoration processes; and (3) well-established and effective escalation procedures for resolving service outages and performance issues.

· The degree to which the offeror demonstrates that individual Communications Services (as defined in FFPS Section 1.2) can continue to operate without performance degradation in the event of a failure of the NOC and/or SOC function(s).

· The degree to which the offeror proposes a sound and effective approach to performing Network Diversity and avoidance audits and resolving identified issues as required by SOW Paragraph C.4.2.11.7 to ensure that Network Diversity and avoidance requirements continue to be met after the initial implementation of the services.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed operations and management approach has a demonstrated record of successful implementation in Safety-critical Environments.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed operations and management approach has a demonstrated record of successful implementation for networks comparable to or greater than FENS relative to the number of sites, services, and geographic scope.

Element 4.2 – Performance Monitoring and Reporting The Government will evaluate:

· The degree to which the offeror demonstrates that it can effectively and accurately monitor and measure the performance of the network infrastructure supporting FENS services and detect when there are performance degradations and outages at the individual service level in accordance with the requirements defined in FFPS Section 7.4.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed monitoring solution provides visibility into the configuration of individual services to include confirming that the operational configurations of individual services remain consistent with the planned design relative to Network Diversity, Avoidance, and/or Survivability, per the definitions in FFPS Section 1.2.

· The degree to which the offeror proposes performance reporting capabilities, inclusive of the generation of alerts and alarms, that meet the requirements defined in FFPS Section 7.5 and provide meaningful measures of real-time performance and historical performance trends at an aggregate level as well as the individual service level.

· The degree to which the offeror demonstrates its ability to meet the requirements defined in attachments J-8b, J-8f, and J-8g for interfaces with Government-operated performance monitoring capabilities.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed performance, security monitoring, and reporting capabilities are scalable and adaptable to meet additional service quantities, increased traffic volumes, and new capabilities through the FENS contract period of performance.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed performance monitoring and reporting approach has a demonstrated record of successful implementation in Safety-critical Environments.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed performance monitoring and reporting approach has a demonstrated record of successful implementation for networks comparable to or greater than FENS relative to the number of sites, services, and geographic scope.

Element 4.3 – Security Monitoring, Management, and Reporting The Government will evaluate:

· The degree to which the offeror demonstrates that it can effectively and accurately monitor the security of the network infrastructure supporting FENS services as well as individual FENS Communications Services in accordance with requirements defined in FFPS Section 8.7.

· The degree to which the offeror proposes security reporting capabilities that meet the requirements defined in FFPS Section 8.7.

· The degree to which the offeror proposes a sound and effective approach to recovering from cybersecurity attacks and demonstrates its ability and experience in executing the proposed approach.

· The degree to which the offeror proposes a sound and effective approach to: (1) tracking the need for security patches; and (2) coordinating with the FAA to validate and implement security patches in a timely manner.

· The degree to which the offeror demonstrates that it has: (1) sufficient resources within its SOC function to perform the required Security Operations functions defined in SOW Paragraph C.4.2.12.8; and (2) well-established and effective escalation procedures for resolving security-related issues.

· The degree to which the offeror describes its approach for interaction between SOC and NOC personnel for exchange of network performance and threat information and for coordination of activities related to resolving issues related to network performance and security threats.

· The degree to which the offeror demonstrates a sound and effective approach for obtaining Cybersecurity Threat Intelligence information and sharing it with the NAS Cyber Operations (NCO) and FAA SOC.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed Security Monitoring, Management, and Reporting approach has a demonstrated record of successful implementation in Safety-critical Environments.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed Security Monitoring, Management, and Reporting approach has a demonstrated record of successful implementation for networks comparable to or greater than FENS relative to the number of sites, services, and geographic scope.

Element 4.4 – Engineering and Customer Support The Government will evaluate:

· The degree to which the offeror proposes a sound and effective approach to providing the required engineering support, as defined in SOW Paragraph C.4.2.4.1, to assess the performance of the FENS network and the need for capacity upgrades and capability enhancements.

· The degree to which the offeror proposes a sound and effective approach to providing the required engineering support, as defined in SOW Paragraph C.4.2.11.6, to assist with the resolution of chronic performance issues.

· The degree to which the offeror proposes a sound and effective approach to providing the required customer support functions, as defined in SOW Paragraph C.4.2.11.9.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed Engineering and Customer Support approach has a demonstrated record of successful implementation in Safety-critical Environments.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed Engineering and Customer Support approach has a demonstrated record of successful implementation for networks comparable to or greater than FENS relative to the number of sites, services, and geographic scope.

Sub-Factor 5 – Business Processes, User Portals, and Tools Sub-factor 5 evaluates the degree to which each offeror’s proposed approach to performing the required business processes and its proposed solutions for the FENS User Portals and supplemental tools meet applicable requirements, in order to achieve the FENS Program Objectives identified in Attachment J-0, Section 6. Within this sub-factor, “FENS User Portals” is inclusive of the FAA User Portal function defined in FFPS Section 6.1 and the FENS External User Portal defined in FFPS Section 6.2. There are three elements comprising Sub-factor 5, which are outlined below.

Element 5.1 – Business Processes The Government will evaluate:

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed business processes align with the FAA’s Managed Services Framework and Processes, described in Attachment J-6, to facilitate effective execution of the required Business Operations Functions in SOW Paragraph C.4.2.13.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed business processes will make effective use of the proposed OSS, back office tools, and FENS User Portals.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed business processes ensure the accuracy of FENS invoices per the requirements of FENS Contract Section G.7.1, provide clear traceability of all charges and adjustments, and facilitate Government validation of invoices and prompt resolution of invoice discrepancies.

· The degree to which the offeror’s business processes have a demonstrated record of successful implementation in Managed Services operating environments similar to that described in SOW Paragraph C.1.2.

Element 5.2 – FENS User Portals and Tools

· The degree to which the offeror demonstrates that its proposed solution for the FENS User Portals provides the required functions and capabilities specified in FFPS Section 6.

· The degree to which the offeror demonstrates that its proposed solutions for the FENS User Portals, the individual functions supported by the FENS User Portals, and any proposed supplemental tools ensure consistency and accuracy of data, improve efficiency, enhance user productivity, and align with the FAA’s Managed Services Framework and Processes described in Attachment J-6.

· The degree to which the offeror’s FAA User Portal provides authorized Government users with visibility and facilitates Government oversight of the network service configuration and operations to include confirming on a real-time basis that the physical routing of individual services implemented with Diversity, Avoidance, and/or Survivability, as defined in FFPS Section 1.2.

· The degree to which the offeror's proposed FENS User Portals are well-integrated with the FENS OSS to ensure users are provided with the most current data.

· The degree to which the offeror’s proposed FENS User Portals and any supplemental tools have a demonstrated record of successful implementation in Managed Services operating environments similar to that described in SOW Paragraph C.1.2.

Element 5.3 – Managed Service Framework Transformation The Government will evaluate:

· The degree to which the…