Basis_of_Award_Evaluation_Factors_For_Award_20250814.docx

UNCLASSIFIED

Basis Of Award & Evaluation Factors For Award

RFP HM157525R0020

Basis Of Award:

This procurement is being conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 12.6 - Streamlined procedures for Evaluation and Solicitation for Commercial Items and FAR Subpart 13.5 - Simplified Procedures for Certain Commercial Products and Commercial Services. The Government intends to award based upon a Best Value Trade-Off evaluation utilizing Technical and Price. Following receipt of proposal, the Government will evaluate the Technical factor and Price factor to determine the best value for the Government. Relative Importance of the Factors: Factors are listed in order of importance. The Technical factor is significantly more important than the Price factor. All Factor 1 Sub-Factors are weighted equally.

Interchanges are fluid interaction(s) between the CO and the Offerors that may address any aspect of the proposal and may or may not be documented in real time. The Government intends to make award based on the initial proposal submissions without conducting interchanges. Therefore, each offer should contain the Offeror’s best and accurate terms for all proposal volumes. However, the Government reserves the right to hold interchanges using Interchange Notices (IN) if, at any point prior to, during, or after the evaluation, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. IN’s may be conducted in the form of telephone or email correspondence between an Offeror and the NGA CO or Contract Specialist. Offeror responses to IN’s will be considered in making the award decisions, as will any proposal volume changes, should the Government request them during interchanges. The Government may conduct interchanges with some, none, or all Offerors responding to this RFP at its discretion. The Government may reject any or all proposals if such action is in the public interest; and waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals received.

Evaluation Factors For Award:

Proposals submitted in response to the RFP will be evaluated against the following Factors and Sub-factors:

Factor 1: Technical

· Sub-factor 1.1 Demonstrate the competencies for reviewing aeronautical data/charts.

· Sub-factor 1.2 Provide a comprehensive portfolio for auditing government or civil aeronautical organizations

Factor 2: Price

Factor 1 – Technical

Each Technical Sub-factor as defined below will be evaluated for strengths and weaknesses (see Table A).

Sub-Factor 1.1: Demonstrate the competencies for reviewing aeronautical data/charts.

Provide a comprehensive portfolio and narrative explanation that demonstrates that the individuals conducting the E-IP data review as the expert knowledge that supports the understanding of the GFI per the SoW

Sub-Factor 1.2: Provide a comprehensive portfolio for auditing government or civil aeronautical organizations

Provide a comprehensive portfolio and narrative explanation that demonstrates working knowledge and experience with auditing aeronautical organizations that produce aeronautical products.

Factor 2 – Price

The offered price will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete and/or unreasonable will not be considered for award. The Offeror that proposes the Lowest TEP will be considered to have offered the lowest price to the Government.

Table A Degrees of Strengths and Weaknesses

Significant Strength (+ + +) An aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be significantly advantageous to the Government during contract performance (or may significantly decrease the risk of unsuccessful contract performance).

Major Strength An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be moderately advantageous to the Government during contract performance (and/or may moderately decrease the risk of unsuccessful contract performance).

Minor Strength (+) An aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be slightly advantageous to the Government during contract performance (and/or may slightly decrease the risk of unsuccessful contract performance).

Major Weakness A flaw in the proposal that moderately increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.