NEXV3 SIR Sect M.docx

693KA8-23-R-00005

Page M-1

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables

Table M-11 – Definition of Adjectival Ratings for Volume I (Factor 1, Technical

AMS 3.1-1 CLAUSES AND PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (July 2019) 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 FAA 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.

Clauses and Provisions Incorporated in Full Text The version in effect on the date of the issuance of the Screening Information Request (SIR) release is applicable unless otherwise specifically noted.

GENERAL INFORMATION

The following general information provides notice to Offerors.

Award on Initial Offers The FAA reserves the right to award this contract based on initial offers received without communications or negotiations. Therefore, it is critical that each proposal be fully responsive to this SIR. Each initial offer should be submitted on the most favorable terms from the standpoint of meeting SIR requirements as well as price.

Rejection of Non-Responsive and Unrealistic Proposals FAA reserves the right to reject proposals that are nonresponsive to solicitation requirements or unrealistic in terms of technical content or schedule commitments. Some representative examples, which are not intended to be all inclusive, are as follows:

· A Volume I (Factor 1, Technical Proposal) that contains, in the FAA’s discretion, too many unsubstantiated Analyses (i.e., white papers and/or data analysis reports) submitted in Part A (Element 1.1).

· A Volume II (Factor 2, Management Proposal) consisting of general statements that the Offeror understands the requirements of the work to be performed or a proposal that merely rephrases or restates Statement of Work (SOW) requirements and/or Section M evaluation criteria is nonresponsive to solicitation requirements.

Evaluation of Deviations and Exceptions Offerors submitting any deviations and/or exceptions to the requirements of this SIR will receive a “Fail” rating-determination for each associated “shall” or “should” requirement or will have an associated deficiency (as defined in the Table M-10 footnote) with respect to each term and condition not met.

“Fail” rating determinations, related to deviations and/or exceptions, will be assessed in accordance with Sections M.4.2.1, M.4.2.1.1, M.4.2.1.2, M.5.1 (inclusive of its subsections), and the definitions in Section M.6, Table M-9.

Offerors submitting Analyses that include a deviation that either provides an incomplete or unsubstantiated response, or renders the Offeror non-responsive to a “shall” requirement, will be assessed a weakness or a risk for that associated “shall” requirements in accordance with Section M.6, Table M-9. Therefore, the completeness and extent to which an Offeror’s submitted comparative Analyses explain why a deviation from the FAA’s cited standard to an alternate standard would either not degrade technical performance, or quantify the alternate’s standard’s potential degradation compared to the FAA’s cited standard’s technical performance, is the Offeror’s objective.

Deficiencies, related to deviations and/or exceptions, will be assessed in accordance with Sections M.4.2.2, M.5.2 (inclusive of its subsections) and the definitions in Section M.6, Table M-10.

Evaluation of Risk Risk will be assessed only within Volume I (Factor 1, Technical Proposal) and Volume II (Factor 2, Management Proposal). Risk is defined in Section M.6, in Table M-9 and Table M-10.

Evaluation of Technical Risk and Factor 1 Risk Rating Risk assessments for Volume I (Factor 1, Technical Proposal) will consider technical risk pertaining to the following aspects of each Offeror’s technical proposal:

i. The quantity and type of failed compulsory “shall” requirements (i.e., shalls with High priority versus Non-High priority shalls);

ii. The extent of failures, which may increase the likelihood of unsuccessful technical performance, as documented in resultant Operational Capabilities Test (OCT) data records and with respect to the required performance defined by compulsory minimum “shall” requirements in SIR Attachment J01, FAA-E-37021, NEXCOM Version 3 (V3) UHF/VHF Radio Product Description (PD), hereafter referred to as the NEXCOM V3 Radio PD;

iii. Inconsistencies and discrepancies between various aspects within the technical proposal, and;

iv. Unsubstantiated representations made by any Offeror in either their submitted Analyses and/or related deviations or exceptions in accordance with Section M.2.3.

A Risk Rating, as defined in Section M.6, Table M-8, will be assigned to each Offeror’s technical proposal at the Factor 1-level in accordance with Section M.5.1 and its subsections. The assigned Factor 1-level Risk Rating will consider inputs from both Part A – Analyses (Element 1.1) and Part B – Conduct of OCT (Element 1.2) and documents the extent of uncertainty as to whether the Offeror can meet the technical requirements of the NEXCOM V3 Radio Program.

The Factor 1-level Risk Rating assigned to each Offeror’s technical proposal will be an input to assign a Factor 1-level Adjectival Rating, as defined in Section M.6, Table M-11.

Evaluation of Management Risk Risk assessments for Volume II (Factor 2, Management Proposal) will consider programmatic, managerial and contractual risk pertaining to the following aspects of each Offeror’s management proposal:

i. Inconsistencies and discrepancies between various aspects within the management proposal (i.e., Section M.5.2, Elements 2.1 through 2.6).

A Risk Rating will not be assigned to each Offeror’s management proposal. Any assessed risks will be part of the Factor 2-level Adjectival Rating, as defined in Section M.6, Table M-12.

Responsibility Determination To be eligible for award, a prospective Contractor (i.e., Offeror) must be determined to be responsible in accordance with FAA Acquisition Management Policy 3.2.2.2 (October 2021). At a minimum, in order to be determined responsible, an Offeror must:

· Have or be able to obtain adequate financial resources to perform this contract;

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

· Have a satisfactory record of integrity and proper business ethics, and be able to meet the security requirements of FAA Order 1600.1F;

· Have the necessary organization, experience, technical skills and facilities, and technical equipment or the ability to obtain them;

· Have a satisfactory performance history;

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

· Have no unacceptable Organizational Conflicts of Interests (OCIs) or OCI Mitigation Plans. Determination of acceptability or unacceptability of potential OCIs and any associated OCI Mitigation Plans are made by the CO in accordance with AMS 3.1.7 "Organizational Conflicts of Interest” and applicable OCI clauses;

· Have 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

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

The FAA will consider information in Volume VI (Miscellaneous Documentation) and may consider all Volumes of the Offeror’s proposal in making a responsibility determination. FAA may rely on information from compliance and regulatory agencies or independent investigation in making a responsibility determination.

EVALUATION PROCESS

Compliance Review 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. The FAA reserves the right to reject any proposal failing to comply with the requirements of Section L.

Submittals will be initially screened for completeness, accuracy and timeliness, and must contain the Offeror’s best technical, price and other than price terms necessary to determine reasonableness. The term “completeness” corresponds to whether the Offeror’s proposal complies with the SIR requirements at a high level. The term “accuracy” is the extent to which the proposal adheres to specific requirements of the SIR, such as specific font size and page limits. The term “timeliness” corresponds to whether the Offeror’s proposal and related deliveries were received no later than the due date and time specified in Section L.3.1 and L.3.3. Offerors may be found ineligible for award if their proposals fail to conform to all terms and conditions of the SIR. If it is determined to be in its best interest, the FAA reserves the right to:

Reject any and all offers;

Waive any requirements; and, Accept minor irregularities and discrepancies.

Omissions or vague responses to the requirements of this solicitation may cause a proposal to be determined incomplete and may cause Offerors to be determined ineligible for award. Therefore, Offerors should provide comprehensive and adequate responses to all factors within the respective Volume proposals regardless of their order of importance. Since there may be no revised proposal submissions, Offerors should be fully responsive to the SIR and ensure that the proposals they submit contain their best terms from the standpoint of the proposed technical solution (i.e., NEXCOM V3 Radio equipment), management approach, and price.

The FAA reserves the right to conduct a pre-award survey of any Offeror or Offeror’s subcontractor(s) if deemed necessary by the CO.

Communications with Offerors During the evaluation process, FAA may conduct communications with any or all Offerors in accordance with FAA Acquisition Management Policy Section 3.2.2.3.1.2.2. The FAA reserves the right to award this contract without communications, in accordance with FAA Acquisition Management Policy 3.2.2.3.1.2.3 (September 2020). The following conditions apply to Offeror communications:

a) Communications with one Offeror does not require communications with any other Offeror.

b) The FAA communications may occur orally or in writing.

c) Offeror written responses to Clarification Requests (CRs) may be considered in the evaluation of an Offeror’s proposal and may serve as the basis for strengths, weaknesses, and risks. The FAA is not obligated to advise Offerors of weaknesses or risks assessed in their proposals.

d) Any information provided in response to FAA-issued communications may be used in the evaluation of proposals.

e) The FAA reserves the right to conduct communications, discussions, and negotiations with any Offeror as it pertains to their offers. One-on-one communications may continue throughout the source selection process at the FAA’s discretion.

Exclusion from Competition Proposals that fail to meet the requirements of the SIR, or are unrealistic in terms of technical content or schedule commitments, or fail to identify and address risks of the contract requirements, may result in the Offeror being assessed as lacking technical competence. Failing to comprehend technical complexity may lead the FAA to conclude that the Offeror has an inadequate understanding of the requirements. Such failures will be reflected in assessed weaknesses and risks. Evidence of an inadequate understanding of the requirement may result in a determination that the proposal is ineligible for any further evaluation and contract award.

Therefore, during the evaluation process, the FAA may limit continued participation in the competition to those Offerors most likely to receive award. If at any time during the evaluation process FAA concludes that an Offeror is not likely to receive award, the FAA may eliminate the Offeror from further consideration for award. Within five (5) calendars days after an Offeror’s elimination from the competition, the FAA CO will notify the eliminated Offeror of their elimination and the basis for that elimination.

Evaluation Approach The FAA will perform proposal evaluations based on:

a) Offeror’s Responsibility Determination as described in Section M.2.5;

b) Eligible Offerors’ responses to this SIR, as instructed in Section L, and confirmed by compliance reviews as described in Section M.3.1;

c) The Basis of Award criteria as described in Section M.4 (inclusive of subsections); and

d) The Evaluation Factors for Award criteria as described in Section M.5 (inclusive of subsections).

Each responsible and eligible Offeror’s radio equipment submittal will undergo an Operational Capabilities Test (OCT). OCT is an assessment of the ability of each Offeror’s proposed V3 radio equipment to meet the FAA NEXCOM V3 Radio requirements as described in Section M.5.1.1 (Analyses) and in Section M.5.1.2 (Conduct of OCT).

Each responsible and eligible Offeror's relative position in the conduct-of-OCT-sequence will be determined randomly. Responsible and eligible Offerors will receive their respective dates for Conduct-of-OCT, in writing, by the FAA CO.

Evaluation by Non-Government Personnel

a) Offerors are advised that personnel from the Contractor list in Table M-1., Potential Non-Government Advisors/Support, may assist the FAA during the FAA’s evaluation of proposals. These Contractors are restricted by the Organizational Conflict of Interest provision of their respective contracts and a Non-Disclosure Agreement. The Non-Disclosure Agreement will be executed by each individual from these Contractor organizations prior to evaluation support. Such personnel may participate in evaluating, specifically providing technical, past performance, and/or cost evaluation and analysis support.

b) The Offeror agrees, by the submission of a proposal, to have its proposal reviewed by these Contractors for the purpose of providing support to the FAA unless Offeror provides objections to such disclosure as follows. Offeror must submit any objections to disclosures as described:

(1) the objection must be provided in writing to CO, prior to the date set for receipt of proposals, and subsequently as applicable; and

(2) include a detailed statement of the basis for the objection. If the Offeror fails to object in accordance with the preceding sentence, they will be deemed to have no objection.

c) During the evaluation of proposals the FAA may have need support from companies other than those listed in Table M-1, Potential Non-Government Advisors/Support. If so, the CO will provide written notice to the Offeror, referring to this paragraph, identifying the company(ies) involved, and notifying the Offeror to provide any objection to disclosure of information within 48 hours of the time the disclosure is sent. If the Offeror fails to object in accordance with the preceding sentence, the Offeror will be deemed to have no objection.

Table M-1 – Potential Non-Government Advisors/Support Company

ASRC Federal

CEXEC, Inc.

DTIS, LLC

ITstrategy

KM Systems Group

Solentus

THANE

Veracity Engineering

BASIS FOR AWARD

FAA will utilize a best value approach for selecting an Offeror IAW the FAA Acquisition Management System (AMS). The best value approach will examine the Factors below, in accordance with Table M-2, to determine which Offeror’s proposal, as a whole, represents the best value to the Government.

Technical risk, which is an integral part of each Offeror’s Factor 1, Technical Proposal, Adjectival Rating, will be considered as an input to the FAA’s best value trade-off analysis. Additionally, Offeror’s responses to Factor 4, Manufacturing Proposal, will also be considered as an input to the FAA’s best value trade-off analysis.

This approach does not require FAA to award to the Offeror submitting the highest rated technical proposal or to the Offeror submitting the lowest prices, although the ultimate award decision may be to one of these Offerors, or an Offeror whose proposal possesses both aspects.

As part of its best value trade-off analysis and evaluation approach, the FAA retains the right to not make any award, or to make an award, whether or not the awardee meets all compulsory minimum technical requirements (i.e., “High Priority Shalls” and “Non-High Priority Shalls”) or meets any or all desired technical requirements (i.e., “High Priority Shoulds” or “Non-High Priority Shoulds”).

Evaluation Factors Order of Importance Table M-2 provides the rating methodology and the Factors order of importance.

Table M-2 – Rating Methodology and Factors Order of Importance

Factor 1 (Technical Proposal)

Factor 1 Element 1.1 (Analyses)

Element 1.2

Factor 1 Element 1.2 (Conduct of OCT)

Element 1.1

Factor 1 Element 1.3 (Self-Eval Form)

Factor 1 Element 1.4 (OCT Demonstration Scripts)

Element 1.2

Factor 1 Element 1.5 (OCT Familiarization Training Materials)

Element 1.2

Factor 1 Element 1.6 (OCT Equipment Packing List)

Element 1.2

Factor 1 Element 1.7 (VOTER Test Results)

Element 1.2

Factor 2 (Management Proposal)

Factor 2 Element 2.1 (Resumes) Assessed strengths, weaknesses and aspects of management risk, as defined in Section M.6, Table M-10.

Element 2.5 is more important than the other Factor 2 Elements. All other Elements are equal in importance.

Factor 2 Element 2.2 (Program Management Approach) Assessed strengths, weaknesses and aspects of management risk, as defined in Section M.6, Table M-10.

Factor 2 Element 2.3 (Configuration Management Approach) Assessed strengths, weaknesses and aspects of management risk, as defined in Section M.6, Table M-10.

Factor 2 Element 2.4 (Logistics Approach) Assessed strengths, weaknesses and aspects of management risk, as defined in Section M.6, Table M-10.

Factor 2 Element 2.5 (Contractor Master Test Approach) Assessed strengths, weaknesses and aspects of management risk, as defined in in Section M.6, Table M-10.

Factor 2 Element 2.6 (Technical Services Support Approach) Assessed strengths, weaknesses and aspects of management risk, as defined in Section M.6, Table M-10.

Factor 3 (Past Performance Proposal)

Factor 4 (Manufacturing Proposal)

Manufacturing may be used as preference in the best value award decision

Factor 5 (Price Proposal)

Factor Details and Ratings Volume I (Factor 1, Technical Proposal), Volume II (Factor 2, Management Proposal) and Volume III (Factor 3, Past Performance Proposal) have evaluation details or associated rating definitions or both, which are defined in the subsections of this section, and will work in concert with each respective Factor’s evaluation criteria, as defined in Section M.5 and its subsections.

Volume IV (Factor 4, Manufacturing Proposal) and Volume V (Factor 5, Price Proposal), do not have, or do not require additional definition to their evaluation details and will not be assigned ratings. Therefore, they are not mentioned in the subsections of this section. The Manufacturing and Price Proposals do have evaluation criteria, as defined in Section M.5 (and its subsections), which will ensure compliance with SIR requirements and facilitate any compliance and responsibility determinations.

Volume I (Factor 1, Technical Proposal) Details and Adjectival Rating For the purposes of this evaluation, the term “Shall” refers to a compulsory requirement of a system component, parameter or the complete system, and the term “Should” refers to a desired, non-compulsory requirement, of a system component, parameter or the complete system.

When determining the Factor 1-level Adjectival Rating the FAA will assess strengths (associated with Shalls and Shoulds), assess weaknesses (associated with Shalls only) and assess any aspects of technical risk (associated with Shalls only) that have the greatest impact to technical performance.

The Factor 1-level Adjectival Rating (as defined in Section M.6, Table M-11) will be assigned based on the combined impact of the assessed strengths and weaknesses (as defined in Section M.6, Table M-9) and the Factor 1-level Risk Rating (as defined in Section M.6, Table M-8 and Sections M.2.4 and M.2.4.1). The FAA will assign these Factor 1-level Ratings using its professional judgment and based on the order of importance as defined in Section M.4.1, Table M-2.

Refer to Section M.5.1 (and its subsections) for Factor 1 evaluation criteria for Part A - Analyses (Element 1.1) and Part B - Conduct of OCT (Element 1.2).

The individual Factor 1 Elements 1.1 and 1.2 will not be assigned an Adjectival Rating and they will not be assigned a Risk Rating.

Compulsory “Shalls” Relationship to Adjectival Rating For the purposes of this evaluation, each compulsory minimum requirement that is identified as either a “High Priority Shall” or “Non-High Priority Shall” in SIR Attachment M03 {(OCT Verification Requirements Traceability Matrix (VRTM)}, will have an assigned “Pass” or “Fail” rating-determination based on its specific requirement criteria as defined in SIR Attachments J01 {NEXCOM V3 Radio PD, FAA-E-37021}, L04 (NEXV3 Analyses Requirements), M01 (OCT Plan) and M02 (VOTER Testing Requirements).

Compulsory minimum requirements, with the exception of shall284, that are defined in multiple test cases or have multiple parameter settings, within their specific criteria, must acceptably meet (i.e., “Pass”) all test cases or parameter settings in order to receive a “Pass” rating-determination.

Offerors will receive a “Pass” rating-determination for shall284 if ≥ 90% of the subset of VOTER test cases defined in SIR Attachment M02 (VOTER Testing Requirements) are passed in the specified VOTER tool. Offerors will receive a “Fail” rating-determination for shall284 if < 90% of the subset of VOTER test cases defined in SIR Attachment M02 are passed in the VOTER tool.

The FAA will assess a strength to “Shalls” that are determined to have a “Pass” rating-determination and exceed NEXCOM V3 Radio PD requirements’ criteria in accordance with the definitions in Section M.6, Table M-9. Not every instance that a “Shall” is determined to exceed its respective NEXCOM V3 Radio PD requirements’ criteria will be assessed as a strength.

The FAA will assess a weakness to “Shalls” that are determined to have a “Fail” rating-determination in accordance with the definitions in Section M.6, Table M-9. Not every instance that a “Shall” receives a “Fail” rating-determination will be assessed as a weakness.

For the purposes of this evaluation, any “Shall” that is identified as “Not Evaluated” in SIR Attachment M03 (OCT VRTM) will not have “Pass” or “Fail” determinations and will not be evaluated; however, these shalls will be compulsory after contract award, if they are applicable to the awardee’s proposed design.

For the purposes of this evaluation, any “Shall” that is identified as “Not-Separately Evaluated” in SIR Attachment M03 (OCT VRTM) will be considered in determining the “Pass” or “Fail” rating for the identified “Shalls” and “Shoulds” in Table M-3. The FAA will assess a strength or weakness for the Table M-3 identified “Shalls” and will assess a strength for the Table M-3 identified “Shoulds” in accordance with the definitions in Section M.6, Table M-9. These “Not-Separately Evaluated Shalls” will also be compulsory after contract award, if they are applicable to the awardee’s proposed design.

Table M-3 – Not Separately Evaluated “Shalls”

3.2.2.1.7.

d through g and

3.3.2.1.

a and b

Receiver Frequency Tolerance and

Reference Frequency Monitor Connectors

Shall65, shall66, shall67, shall68, shall308, and shall309 will not have individual Pass or Fail rating determinations. Offerors will be assigned a single “Pass or Fail” rating-determination associated with shall62 in accordance with SIR Attachments L04 (NEXV3 Analyses Requirements), M01 (OCT Plan), and M03 (VRTM).

Offerors whose design requires a measurement of the receiver frequency reference to align their receiver must address shall65, shall66, shall67, shall68, shall308, and shall309 in their submitted ALOF Analysis as part of their substantiation in order to receive a Pass rating determination for shall62.

Offerors whose design possesses an automated alignment must provide a description of their automated alignment and address why the shall65, shall66, shall67, shall68, shall308, and shall309 are not applicable in their submitted ALOF Analysis as part of their substantiation in order to receive a Pass rating determination for shall62.

3.2.2.1.7

a) The frequency tolerance of the receiver reference frequency shall62 be within 0.0001 percent (1 ppm) of its reference value for a period of one year following alignment over the full frequency range specified in section 3.2.1.2, and the temperature range specified in section 3.4.3.2 (Operating Conditions).

d) If a measurement of the receiver frequency reference is required to align the radio to meet the tolerance defined in 3.2.2.1.7.a, the external reference frequency monitor port shall65 have an impedance of 50 ohms.

e) If a measurement of the receiver frequency reference is required to align the radio to meet the tolerance defined in 3.2.2.1.7.a, the external reference frequency monitor port shall66 have a reference signal level greater than or equal to −20 dBm.

f) If a measurement of the receiver frequency reference is required to align the radio to meet the tolerance defined in 3.2.2.1.7.a, the receiver shall67 provide an output of the reference frequency signal for measurement, testing and alignment.

g) If a measurement of the receiver frequency reference is required to align the radio to meet the tolerance defined in 3.2.2.1.7.a, the reference signal monitor port shall68 be sufficiently isolated such that a short circuit applied from the monitor port to ground does not degrade the radio performance as specified in Section 3.2.2.1, Receiver Requirements.

3.3.2.1

a) If a measurement of the receiver frequency reference is required to align the radio to meet the tolerance defined in 3.2.2.1.7.a, the reference frequency monitor connector shall308 be located on the front panel of the receiver.

b) If a measurement of the receiver frequency reference is required to align the radio to meet the tolerance defined in 3.2.2.1.7.a, the connector shall309 be a female BNC with shielded termination.

As part of each Offeror’s submitted Analyses, Offerors will decide if they their design meets should57.

Shall244, shall245, shall246, shall247, shall248, shall249, and shall250 will not have individual Pass or Fail rating determinations. Offerors will be assigned a single “Pass or Fail” rating-determination associated with should57 in accordance with SIR Attachments L04 (NEXV3 Analyses Requirements), M01 (OCT Plan), and M03 (VRTM).

Offerors will need to address and substantiate all nine (9) shalls in Sections 3.2.3.1.1.1.4.b, 3.2.3.1.1.1.4.1.a and 3.2.3.1.1.1.4.2.b as part of their submitted in their submitted ANSS Analysis in order to receive a Pass rating determination for should57.

a) The MDTS should57 have an NSS supervision function.

b) If an NSS is implemented, functions and performance of network components (i.e., NEXCOM V3 radio equipment) shall244 not be influenced by the presence or absence of the NSS.

c) If an NSS is implemented, the introduction and use of an NSS shall245 not to interfere with other possible management, configuration and supervision systems that vendors may have introduced in support of their equipment.

d) If an NSS is implemented, the NSS supervisory function shall246 have enough capacity to guarantee data exchange and storage.

e) If an NSS is implemented, the NSS supervisory function shall247 support redundancy, in order to guarantee a high level of availability and avoid any data loss.

f) If an NSS is implemented, the protocols used for supervision function purposes for all components and objects supervised by the NSS shall248 be standard protocol SNMPv3, as defined by RFC 3411.

g) If an NSS is implemented, radios shall249 be accessible by a remote Maintenance Data Terminal (MDT) placed in the network utilizing the NSS supervision function.

l) If implemented, the NSS shall250 be capable of monitoring the operational status of the supervised network components in near real time.

Shall251 will not have an individual Pass or Fail rating determination. See 3.2.3.1.1.1.4 above regarding assigning a Pass or Fail rating determination for should57.

a) If an NSS is implemented, upon alarm or event occurrence, the NSS shall251 provide information about its nature and, whenever possible, the localization of the alarm/event source, by giving the user appropriate details on “where” a given alarm or event has occurred.

Shall252 will not have individual Pass or Fail rating determination. See 3.2.3.1.1.1.4 above regarding assigning a Pass or Fail rating determination for should57.

b) If an NSS is implemented, alarms and events at the NSS shall252 be user defined allowing the user to define which alarms and events are configured in each severity level.

As part of each Offeror’s submitted Analyses, Offerors will decide if their design meets should88.

Shall285 and shall286 will not have individual Pass or Fail rating determinations.

Offerors will be assigned a single “Pass or Fail” rating-determination associated with should88 in accordance with SIR Attachments L04 (NEXV3 Analyses Requirements), M01 (OCT Plan), and M03 (VRTM).

Offerors will need to address and substantiate shall285 and shall286 as part of their submitted AIPR Analysis in order to receive a Pass rating determination for should88.

f) The remote IP interface(s) should88 support VoIP as described in ED-137C/4 specifications.

g) If the remote IP interface(s) support ED-137C/4, the recording client within the radio shall285 support at least the “RTSP and RTP interleaved over TCP” as defined in ED-137C/4 Section 2.5.1.

h) If the remote IP interface(s) support ED-137C/4, the recording client within the radio shall286 support at least “Recording Mode 2” as defined in ED-137C/4 Section 2.3.

Desired “Shoulds” Relationship to Adjectival Rating For the purposes of this evaluation, each desired requirement that is identified as either a “High Priority Should” or “Non-High Priority Should” in SIR Attachment M03 {(OCT Verification Requirements Traceability Matrix (VRTM)}, will have an assigned “Pass” or “Fail” rating-determination based on its specific requirement criteria defined in SIR Attachments J01 {NEXCOM V3 Radio PD, FAA-E-37021}, M01 (OCT Plan) and M02 (VOTER Testing Requirements). Desired requirements that are defined in multiple test cases or multiple parameter settings, within their specific criteria, must acceptably meet (i.e., “Pass”) all test cases or parameter settings in order to receive a Pass rating-determination.

The FAA will assess strengths for “High Priority Shoulds” or “Non-High Priority Shoulds” as defined in Section M.6, Table M-9. Therefore, not every instance that a “Should” is determined to meet its respective NEXCOM V3 Radio PD requirements’ criteria will be assessed as a strength.

For the purposes of this evaluation, any “Should” that is identified as “Not-Separately Evaluated” in SIR Attachment M03 {(OCT Verification Requirements Traceability Matrix (VRTM)} will be considered when assessing a strength for the identified “Should” in Table M-4. The FAA will assess a strength for the Table M-4 identified “Should” in accordance with the definitions in Section M.6, Table M-9.

After contract award, any desired requirements (i.e., “High Priority Shoulds” or “Non-High Priority Shoulds” or “Not-Separately Evaluated Shoulds” ) that the awardee acceptably meets through either Analyses (Part A) or OCT (Part B) will become compulsory requirements (“Shalls”) for the purposes of Factory Acceptance Test (FAT), Operational Test (OT) and all production equipment delivered to the Government (Refer to Section H.27).

Table M-4 – Not Separately Evaluated “Shoulds”

3.2.3.1.1.1.4 h through k Network Supervision System (NSS) Requirements

As part of each Offeror’s submitted Analyses, Offerors will decide if their NSS design (i.e., should57) meets six additional desired requirements.

Should58, should59, should60, and should61 will not have individual Pass or Fail rating determinations. Offerors will be assigned a single “Pass or Fail” rating-determination associated with should57 in accordance with SIR Attachments L04 (NEXV3 Analyses Requirements), M01 (OCT Plan), and M03 (VRTM).

Offerors may address and substantiate none, some or all of the six (6) shoulds in Sections 3.2.3.1.1.1.4.b, 3.2.3.1.1.1.4.1.a and 3.2.3.1.1.1.4.2.b as part of their submitted ANSS Analysis for the FAA to assess as part of should57.

a) The MDTS should57 have an NSS supervision function.

h) The radio should58, at a minimum, permit a NSS supervisory function to query and set all FAA Monitoring and Control Parameters, as defined in Table 3-16 of this PD, and all monitoring and control parameters as defined in the ED-137C/5 ANNEX A3 MIB.

i) The NSS supervisory function should59 use the FAA Desired ED-137C/5 ANNEX A3 MIB monitoring and control parameter details, as defined in Table 3-17 of this PD, when interfacing to the radio.

j) The radio should60 permit a NSS supervisory function to query and set the FAA Desired Monitoring and Control Parameters, as defined in Table 3-18 of this PD.

k) The radio should61 permit a NSS supervisory function to receive a radio state-change event message and indicate that a Factory Reset was invoked.

Should62 will not have an individual Pass or Fail rating determination.

See Table M-3 (3.2.3.1.1.1.4) regarding assigning a Pass or Fail rating determination for should57. See this Table M-4 (3.2.3.1.1.1.4) directly above regarding desired requirements related to should57.

b) The NSS should62 have the capability of utilizing an NTP clock over the network for use when time stamping alarm and event occurrences.

Should63 will not have an individual Pass or Fail rating determination.

See Table M-2 (3.2.3.1.1.1.4) regarding assigning a Pass or Fail rating determination for should57. See this Table M-3 (3.2.3.1.1.1.4) directly above regarding desired requirements related to should57.

a) Alarms and events at an NSS should63 be categorized according to their severity level as defined by ITU-T M.3100. These levels are as follows:

1) Critical,

2) Major,

3) Minor,

4) Warning, and

5) Cleared.

Volume II (Factor 2, Management Proposal) Details and Adjectival Rating When determining the Factor 2-level Adjectival Rating for each Offeror, the FAA will assess strengths, weaknesses and any aspects of programmatic, management and/or contractual risk that have the greatest impact to management performance.

The Factor 2-level Adjectival Rating (as defined in Section M.6, Table M-12) will be assigned based on the combined impact of the assessed strengths, weaknesses and risks (as defined in Section M.6, Table M-10 and Section M.2.4.2). The FAA will assign the Factor 2-level Adjectival Ratings using its professional judgment and based on the order of importance as defined in Section M.4.1, Table M-2.

Refer to Section M.5.2 (and its subsections) for Factor 2 evaluation criteria related to Part A – Resumes (Element 2.1), Part B – Program Management Approach (Element 2.2 ), Part C – Configuration Management Approach (Element 2.3), Part D – Logistics Approach (Element 2.4), Part E – Contractor Master Test Approach (Element 2.5), and Part F – Technical Services Support Approach (Element 2.6).

The individual Factor 2 Elements 2.1 through 2.6 will not be assigned an Adjectival Rating and they will not be assigned a Risk Rating. Additionally, the Offeror’s management proposal will not be assigned a Risk Rating at the Factor 2-level.

Volume III (Factor 3, Past Performance Proposal) Details and Adjectival Rating The Offeror’s Factor 3 Past Performance proposal will be evaluated in accordance with Sections M.4.2.3.1, M.4.2.3.2, and M.5.3.

Assignment of Past Performance Confidence Rating The FAA will verify the Offeror’s past performance referenced in the completed past-customer SIR Attachment L02 forms (Past Performance Questionnaire) are both recent and relevant to this SIR, as defined in Section M.5.3.

For each Offeror, the FAA will review each of their past-customer references’ SIR Attachment L02 forms received, and will assign each Offeror a Confidence Rating in accordance with Table M-5 based on their past-customer references’ responses to the seven (7) past performance Experience Areas ratings (as defined in Table M-7).

Based upon the documented past performance record, the FAA will assign a Confidence Rating of High Confidence, Sufficient Confidence, or Low Confidence according to the criteria specified in Table M-5. If the FAA receives negative past performance information that would have a significant effect on the likelihood of award to an Offeror, the FAA will disclose the information and provide the Offeror with an opportunity to respond.

Table M-5 – Definitions of Past Performance Confidence Ratings Confidence Rating

The Offeror is responsible for following up to ensure that their selected past-customer references respond no later than the due date for all proposal Volumes (Refer to Section L.3.3).

Offerors that are unable to complete four (4) references, or if their selected past-customer references fail to timely submit SIR Attachment L02 questionnaire forms on their behalf, will be assigned a past performance Confidence Rating of Neutral. The Government reserves the right to evaluate, provide a rating and award to an Offeror if less than four survey responses are received.

Assignment of Factor 3, Past Performance Proposal Adjectival Rating The FAA will assign each Offeror a rating of “Acceptable” of “Unacceptable” for Factor 3, Past Performance Proposal (as defined in Table M-6), based on the their selected past-customer references’ completed L02 questionnaire forms and the FAA assigned Past Performance Confidence Rating (as defined in Table M-5) in accordance with Section M.4.2.3.1.

Table M-6 – Definition of Adjectival Ratings for Volume III (Factor 3, Past Performance Proposal)

In order to be considered for award, the Offeror must be assigned an “Acceptable” rating for their Factor 3, Past Performance Proposal. An “Acceptable” rating documents that the Offeror has satisfactory, or better, performance history (also see Section M.2.5).

EVALUATION FACTORS

FACTOR 1 (TECHNICAL PROPOSAL)

Offerors Factor 1-level Adjectival Rating will be assigned in accordance with the definitions in Section M.6, Table M-11.

The evaluation methods {i.e., Analysis (A), Demonstration (D), Inspection (I), Test (T)} for each NEXCOM V3 Radio PD “Shall” and “Should” requirement are identified in SIR Attachments L04 (NEXV3 Analyses Requirements), M01 (OCT Plan), M02 (VOTER Testing Requirements) and M03 (OCT VRTM).

At the completion of FAA evaluations for Part A – Analyses (Element 1.1) and Part B – Conduct of OCT (Element 1.2), Offerors assessed strengths and weaknesses related to Analyses’ content and OCT recorded data will be used as inputs to assign a Factor 1-level Adjectival Rating as described in Sections M.4.2.1, M.4.2.1.1, and M.4.2.1.2.

At the completion of FAA evaluations for Part A – Analyses (Element 1.1) and Part B – Conduct of OCT (Element 1.2), Offerors Factor 1-level Risk Rating (as defined in Section M.6, Table M-8) will also be used as an input to assign a Factor 1-level Adjectival Rating as described in Sections M.2.3, M.2.4, M.2.4.1, M.2.4.2, M.5.1.1, and M.5.1.2.

Part A – Analyses (Element 1.1) Using professional judgement, the FAA will assess strengths, weaknesses, and risk (as defined in Section M.6, Table M-9) based on the extent to which each Offeror’s submitted Analyses (i.e., white papers or data analysis reports) provide acceptable supporting technical data to substantiate NEXCOM V3 Radio PD “Shall” and “Should” requirements that use the Analysis (A) evaluation method (refer to SIR Attachments L04, M01, and M03).

Also using professional judgement, the FAA will use assessed aspects of technical risk related to the Offeror’s submitted Analyses as inputs to assign a Factor 1-level Risk Rating (as defined in Section M.6, Table M-8).

(Refer to Section L.5.1.1).

Part B – Conduct of Operational Capabilities Test (OCT) (Element 1.2) The FAA will conduct OCT to assess strengths, weaknesses, and risks (as defined in Section M.6, Table M-9) based on the extent to which each Offeror’s submitted NEXCOM V3 Radio equipment meets NEXCOM V3 Radio PD “Shall” and “Should” requirements identified as using the Demonstration (D), Inspection (I) and Test (T) verification/evaluation methods (refer to SIR Attachments M01, M02, and M03).

Using professional judgement, the FAA will use assessed aspects of technical risk related to the Offeror’s submitted NEXCOM V3 Radio equipment OCT performance as inputs to assign a Factor 1-level Risk Rating (as defined in Section M.6, Table M-8).

(Refer to Section L.5.1.2).

Part C – NEXCOM V3 Radio PD Self Evaluation Form (Element 1.3) Offerors submitted NEXCOM V3 Radio PD Self Evaluation Form is part of the Evaluation Approach defined in Section M.3.4.b. The Offeror’s NEXCOM V3 Radio PD Self Evaluation Form will not be assigned any type of rating (i.e., Pass/Fail; Adjectival; Risk).

If cases arise where the FAA evaluation determines that an Offeror’s submitted Analysis (Part A) is incomplete or unsubstantiated or an Offeror’s submitted NEXCOM V3 Radio equipment (Part B) fails to meet a requirement during OCT for either compulsory requirements (“Shalls”) or desired requirements (“Shoulds”)} as defined in the NEXCOM V3 Radio PD --- but the Offeror’s submitted self-evaluation form indicates the requirement is met --- the FAA may issue a Clarification Request (CR) regarding the discrepancy.

(Refer to Section L.5.1.3) Part D – OCT Demonstration Scripts (Element 1.4) Offerors submitted OCT demonstration scripts are part of the Evaluation Approach defined in Section M.3.4.b. The Offerors OCT demonstration scripts themselves (i.e., the paper copies or the PDF copy) will not be assigned any type of rating (i.e., Pass/Fail; Adjectival; Risk); however each individual NEXCOM V3 Radio PD “Shall” and “Should” requirements using the Demonstration (D) verification/evaluation method {as identified in SIR Attachments M01 (OCT Plan) and M03 (OCT VRTM)} will be evaluated in accordance with Sections M.5.1 and M.5.1.2 using the Offerors submitted OCT demonstration scripts.

(Refer to Section L.5.1.4)

Part E – OCT Familiarization Training Materials (Element 1.5) Offerors submitted OCT familiarization training materials are part of the Evaluation Approach defined in Section M.3.4.b. The Offerors OCT familiarization training materials will used in accordance with SIR Attachment M01 (OCT Plan) and will not be assigned any type of rating (i.e., Pass/Fail; Adjectival; Risk).

(Refer to Section L.5.1.5) Part F – OCT Equipment Packing List (Element 1.6) Offerors submitted OCT equipment packing list is part of the Evaluation Approach as defined in Section M.3.4.b. The Offerors OCT equipment packing list will be used in accordance with SIR Attachment L07 (OCT Equipment Submission Compliance Review Form) and will not be assigned any type of rating (i.e., Pass/Fail; Adjectival; Risk).

(Refer to Section L.5.1.6) Part G – NEXCOM V3 Radio OCT VOTER Files (Element 1.7) Offerors submitted VOTER test results files, with the naming convention as defined in L.5.1.7, are part of the Evaluation Approach defined in Section M.3.4.b. The Offerors submitted VOTER test result files will not be assigned any type of rating (i.e., Pass/Fail; Adjectival; Risk) and will be used for FAA-reference purposes only.

The FAA will execute the same VOTER test campaigns (i.e., *.CLF files) within the two FAA-provided…