NISC IV SIR - Revised Section M (SIR Amendment No. 0002) (Changes Highlighted).pdf

SIR No. 693KA9-20-R-00005

Amendment No. 0002

Section M - Page 1

PART IV - SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Section M - Page 2

Table of Contents

M.1 FAA AMS 3.1-1, CLAUSES AND PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY

REFERENCE (DEC 2005)

M.2 BASIS FOR AWARD

M.2.1 AWARD SELECTION

M.2.2 SCORING

M.3 EVALUATION PROCESS

M.4 PROPOSAL EVALUATION SUMMARY

M.4.1 QUALITY OF PROPOSALS

M.4.2 TIMELINESS OF PROPOSALS

M.4.3 COMPLETENESS OF PROPOSALS

M.4.1 RESERVED

M.5 MANAGEMENT APPROACH FACTOR

M.5.1 PROGRAM AND PROGRAM/CORPORATE STRUCTURE EVALUATION

M.5.2 NATIONAL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT CAPABILITIES EVALUATION

M.5.3 KEY PERSONNEL CAPABILITY EVALUATION

M.5.4 TRANSITION MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY EVALUATION

M.5.5 MANAGEMENT APPROACH FACTOR AND SUB-FACTOR CALCULATION

M.6 FUNCTIONAL FACTOR EVALUATION

M.6.1 FUNCTIONAL FACTOR SUB-FACTORS

M.7 PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

M.7.1 PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT CALCULATION

M.8 RISK EVALUATION

M.8.1 MINIMUM RISK EVALUATION CRITERIA

M.8.2 ADJECTIVAL DESCRIPTIONS

M.8.3 RISK FACTOR CALCULATION

M.9 COST EVALUATION

M.10 ELIGIBILITIY FOR AWARD

M.10.1 ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARD CRITERIA

M.10.2 RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATION FACTORS

Table M. 1: Clauses Incorporated

Table M. 2: Section Scoring Percentages

Table M. 3: Evaluation Criteria

Table M. 4: Management Approach Factor Percentages

Section M - Page 3

PART IV - SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 FAA AMS 3.1-1, CLAUSES AND PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY

REFERENCE (DEC 2005)

This final Screening Information Request (SIR), and/or any contract awarded, incorporates by reference one or more provisions or clauses with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Offerors may obtain the full text of any clause contained herein from the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) Acquisition System Toolset home page (http://fast.faa.gov).

Table M.1: Clauses Incorporated

CLAUSE TITLE

3.2.4.30 Evaluation of Options Exercised at Time of Contract Award (April 1996)

3.2.4-31 Evaluation of Options (April 1996)

3.6.1-10 Evaluation of Contractor Participation in the FAA Mentor Protégé

Program (January 1999)

M.2 BASIS FOR AWARD

M.2.1 Award Selection

The offer that provides the best value to the Government will be selected for award based upon the total evaluated score and total offered price (TOP). The total evaluated score is significantly more important than the TOP. This approach provides the opportunity for trade-offs between price and other specified factors, and does not require that an award be made to either the Offeror submitting the highest rated solution or to the Offeror submitting lowest TOP, although the ultimate award decision may be to either of these Offerors. Therefore, the lowest total evaluated cost or the highest scored offer may not necessarily provide the best value to the Government and may not be selected for award. During the evaluation of proposals, should the Government conclude that information submitted by the Offeror would preclude that Offeror from having a reasonable chance of receiving the NISC IV Award, then that Offeror may be rendered no longer eligible for the Award and may be eliminated from further consideration. Any Offeror so eliminated will be officially notified in writing.

The FAA reserves the right to award a contract at the conclusion of the initial evaluation process and may not require communications with the successful Offeror or any other Offeror. Therefore, it is critical that each proposal be fully responsive to this solicitation and its provisions at the time

Section M - Page 4 of initial submittal. Additionally, the Government reserves the right to conduct communications with some, none, or all of the competing Offerors as the situation warrants.

FAA also reserves the right to modify the proposed Contract to incorporate any changes necessary and emanating from the evaluation process.

M.2.2 Scoring

All proposals will receive a total evaluated score based upon an evaluation of Management

Approach, Functional Capability, and Risk. The range of scoring for the sum of these three (3) evaluation factors will range from zero (0) to one hundred (100), representing worst score to best score, respectively.

Table M.2: Section Scoring Percentages

SECTION

PERCENTAGE OF

TOTAL SCORE*

Management Approach 55%

Functional Capability 20%

Risk 25%

*Very small differences between the total evaluated scores can be significant in the overall ranking of proposals.

M.3 EVALUATION PROCESS

The FAA will use Factors and Sub-Factors to evaluate each Offeror's response to the final SIR.

Table M.3: EVALUATION CRITERIA

EVALUATION CRITERIA PURPOSE

Management Approach Factor To evaluate each Offeror's approach to managing this complex national program.

Functional Capability Factor To evaluate each Offeror's functional capability to perform NISC

IV work.

Risk Factor To evaluate the probability, variability and magnitude of the risks derived from each Offeror’s proposal.

Past Performance

To assess past performance based upon input received from individuals familiar with the work and products of the Offeror as demonstrated through previous or ongoing contracts of a similar nature and scope as specified in Section L.24, Past Performance.

Cost Proposal To evaluate the Offeror’s Cost Proposal submitted in response to the final SIR for each Offeror submitting a proposal.

Section M - Page 5

The Management Approach, Functional Capability, and Risk Factors will be evaluated separately from the Cost Proposal. A separate evaluation will assess each Offeror's Past Performance. A separate evaluation to assess the Offeror’s Cost Proposal will be conducted.

A Management Evaluation Team will evaluate capabilities of each Offeror in accordance with the process described below using information submitted by the Offeror or obtained from outside references and other points of contact against evaluation criteria contained in Section M.5.

A Functional Evaluation Team will evaluate capabilities of each Offeror in accordance with the process described below using information submitted by the Offeror or obtained from outside references and other points of contact against evaluation criteria contained in Section M.6.

A Risk Evaluation Team will conduct the Risk Analysis in accordance with Section M.8. The

Risk Evaluation Team will also perform the assessment of Past Performance in accordance with

Section M.7.

A Cost Evaluation Team will evaluate each Offeror’s Cost Proposal in accordance with Section

M.9.

Evaluation Team reports will be presented to the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). The

SSEB may request a consolidated report from the Evaluation Team leads. The SSEB will review the reports submitted and make a best value recommendation to the Source Selection Official

(SSO), who will make the final award decision.

M.4 PROPOSAL EVALUATION SUMMARY

M.4.1 Quality of Proposals

Each Offeror’s written submissions will be evaluated based upon the degree to which the Offeror’s responses are internally consistent, logical, realistic, and feasible as well as the likelihood that the offered plan, approach, and/or methodology will facilitate and result in a quality effort, schedule compliance, and cost performance. Additionally, the evaluation will consider the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates the ability to follow instructions, convey thoughts succinctly, and provide information in a clear, concise, and logical manner.

M.4.2 Timeliness of Proposals

Upon submission of the electronic proposal to the specified Email address. The FAA Contracting

Officer will send a confirmation email to the Offeror's designated point-of-contact. Any proposal received AFTER the specified closing date and time (“Closing Date”) for proposal submissions will not be accepted. There are no exceptions to this submission requirement.

M.4.3 Completeness of Proposals

After the Closing Date for proposals, the FAA Contracting Officer will make a determination regarding whether the proposal, as submitted, is complete under the SIR. Please note that there is no responsibility on the part of the FAA Contracting Officer to review any proposal or make a determination of completeness prior to the Closing Date regardless of when the Offeror's proposal

Section M - Page 6 is submitted. Offerors submitting incomplete proposals will be notified via email sent to the point-of-contact designated by the Offeror. Those proposals deemed incomplete may, at the

Government’s sole discretion, be removed from further consideration.

M.4.1 Reserved

M.5 MANAGEMENT APPROACH FACTOR

The primary consideration in the Management Approach Factor is the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates overall knowledge and an understanding of NISC IV management efforts required to effectively, efficiently, and innovatively achieve NISC IV objectives. The FAA will evaluate the degree to which Offerors demonstrate a thorough understanding of what is involved in the execution of the requirements in Section C. This understanding must include, but is not limited to, demonstrated knowledge as to what is involved in meeting various work requirements, conveying to evaluators what is entailed in the efficient and effective accomplishment of NISC IV work, establishing project requirements, accomplishment of assigned tasks, and reporting progress to the FAA.

Offeror's demonstrated relevant experience in National Program Management, National Business

Operations Management, National Staffing and Human Resource Management, National

Contracts and Subcontracts Administration Management areas and how this experience relates to

NISC IV.

Application of lessons learned from similar sized projects to support the NISC IV effort.

Experience obtained at the proposed entity/team level will be considered more relevant than experience gained at other corporate entity levels (e.g. sectors or divisions).

The Management Approach Factor is comprised of four (4) Sub-Factors specifically correlated to the four (4) Program Management Work Areas contained in Section C of the SIR. The National

Program Management Sub-factor is further broken down into its seven (7) Sub-Factors. The

Management Approach Factors, including Sub-Factors, and their weights in the total evaluated score are presented in Table M.4 below.

Section M - Page 7

Table M.4: Management Approach Factor Percentages

Management Sub-Factors

National Program

Management Sub-Factors

Evaluation

Score

Weight

Program & Program/Corporate Structures 3

National Program Management Capabilities 42

National Program Management

Office

National Business Operations

Management

National Staffing & Human

Resource Management

National Contracts and

Procurement and Subcontracts

Administration Management

Cost Management 5

Task Order Management 3

Information Management 2

Key Personnel Capabilities 5

Transition Management Capabilities 5

Total Management Approach Factor Weight (55 Out Of 100) (Table M-2) 55

M.5.1 Program and Program/Corporate Structure Evaluation

The Program and Program/Corporate Structure will be evaluated as follows per Section L.18.2.

M.5.1.1 The degree to which the proposed program/corporate structure clearly demonstrates an understanding of the NISC IV requirements in regards to the size, scope, complexity, key personnel and assumptions.

M.5.1.2 Teammate/Consortium approach (if applicable) must clearly describe all roles and responsibilities in reference to the above (M.5.1.1) requirement.

The degree to which the proposed immediate organization structure approach is logical, feasible and likely to support effective integration and management of the work under NISC IV.

M.5.1.3 The degree to which the proposed Organizational Structure clearly shows the linkage between Offeror’s National Corporate Structure and the NISC

IV National Program Management Office, in addition to the NISC IV local

Program Management office, inclusive of individual Task Order

Management.

M.5.1.4 The degree to which the proposed program/corporate structure clearly demonstrates a benefit to the FAA in terms of quality, cost, innovation, and schedule.

Section M - Page 8

M.5.2 National Program Management Capabilities Evaluation

The National Program Management Capabilities will be evaluated as follows:

M.5.2.1 National Program Management Office

M.5.2.1.1 The degree to which the proposed approach clearly demonstrates the

Contractor’s ability to provide resources that meet technical qualifications and requirements per Section L.18.3.1.1.

M.5.2.1.2 The degree to which the proposed approach provides for effective and complete communications per Section L.18.3.1.2.

M.5.2.1.3 The degree to which the proposed approach to quality management and assurance will ensure quality of work products per Section

L.18.3.1.3.

M.5.2.1.4 The degree to which the proposed approach to security will ensure effective safeguarding of FAA assets per Section L.18.3.1.4.

M.5.2.1.5 The degree to which the proposed approach to tracking of

Government Assets will ensure effective inventory and asset management per Section L.18.3.1.5.

M.5.2.1.6 The degree to which proposed approach to coordinating and conducting of off-site training will provide quality and effective training to all stakeholders per Section L.18.3.1.6.

M.5.2.1.7 The degree to which the proposed approach addresses the nationwide geographically dispersed nature of program work in the

Continental US and its non-contiguous states, territories and possessions as per Section L.18.3.1.7.

M.5.2.1.8 The degree to which the approach to risk management will help in identifying, evaluating and prioritizing risks and the proposed approach to risk resolution will effectively help with minimizing impacts per Section L.18.3.1.8.

M.5.2.1.9 The degree to which the proposed approach to maintain continuity of operations will minimize any impacts to the NISC programs during shutdowns per Section L.18.3.1.9.

M.5.2.1.10 The degree to which proposed locations, facilities and tools are logical, feasible and likely to promote efficient and cost-effective operations under NISC IV per Section L.18.3.1.10.

Section M - Page 9

M.5.2.2 National Business Operations Management

M.5.2.2.1 The degree to which the proposed policies and procedures will promote effective management operations under NISC IV and facilitate timely delivery and accuracy of all supporting financial data per Section L.18.3.2.1.

M.5.2.2.2 The degree to which the proposed approach to collecting and providing performance metrics will assist with efficient management of the NISC IV contract per Section L.18.3.2.2.

M.5.2.2.3 The degree to which the proposed approach to manage travel budget and costs will assist with efficient management of travel costs and provide compliance and transparency per Section L.18.3.2.3.

M.5.2.3 National Staffing and Human Resource Management

M.5.2.3.1 The degree to which the proposed approach to managing human resources (HR) will substantiate compliance with HR policies per

Section L.18.3.3.1

M.5.2.3.2 The degree to which the proposed approach to staffing will facilitate in getting the right resources, at the right time and with the best value to meet NISC IV Contract requirements per Section L.18.3.3.2.

M.5.2.3.3 The degree to which the proposed approach to work-load projections and balancing will ensure availability of appropriate resources and timely updates to meet NISC IV Contract requirements per Section L.18.3.3.3.

M.5.2.3.4 The degree to which the proposed approach to staffing levels handles dynamic and variable requirements per Section L.18.3.3.4.

M.5.2.3.5 The degree to which the proposed approach to training ensures all personnel will have requisite skill-set and certifications that are current and applicable to both the contractor and FAA per Section

L.18.3.3.5.

M.5.2.3.6 The degree to which the proposed approach ensures consistency and quality of delivery throughout the entire NISC IV workforce to meet

NISC IV contract requirements per Section L.18.3.3.6.

M.5.2.3.7 The degree to which the proposed approach ensures stability and high quality of the workforce per Section L.18.3.3.7.

Section M - Page 10

M.5.2.4 National Contract and Procurement and Subcontract Administration

Management

M.5.2.4.1 National Contract Administration

M.5.2.4.1.1 The degree to which the proposed approach to management of contracts, subcontracts and procurement is logical, feasible and likely to result in a seamless working environment, minimize costs and enhance quality of performance under NISC IV per

Section L.18.3.4.1.1;

M.5.2.4.1.2 The degree to which the proposed approach clearly demonstrates the ability to providing timely reports for all associated requirements (e.g., Task Orders, Sub-Task Orders, etc.), resulting in effective management of NISC IV per Section

L.18.3.4.1.2.

M.5.2.4.1.3 The degree to which the proposed approach clearly demonstrates how performance metrics will be documented and reported as per Section L.18.3.4.1.2 and then used for purposes of evaluation, lessons learned and process improvements as per

Section L.18.3.4.1.3.

M.5.2.4.2 National Procurement and Subcontracts Administration

M.5.2.4.2.1 The degree to which the proposed approach clearly demonstrates the Offeror’s purchasing system’s abilities to meet all associated requirements for timely award, process, schedule, data tracking and documentation (with associated regulations); ensuring requisite compliance and information transparency as per

Section L.18.3.4.2.1.

M.5.2.4.2.2 The degree to which the proposed approach to managing subcontracts will ensure quality, timeliness, best value and consistency of delivery from the subcontractors as per Section

L.18.3.4.2.2.

M.5.2.4.2.3 The degree to which the proposed approach will document, prioritize and ensure small business set-asides targets (in alignment with FAA goals) will be met or exceeded as per

Section L.18.3.4.2.3.

M.5.2.4.2.4 The degree to which the proposed approach to subcontractor life-cycle management will meet performance, costs and other goals as per Section L.18.3.4.2.4.

Section M - Page 11

M.5.2.4.2.5 The degree to which the proposed approach to communication management with subcontractors will ensure timely and effective dispute resolutions as per Section L.18.3.4.2.5.

M.5.2.4.2.6 The degree to which the proposed approach to project close-outs will ensure efficient invoice and payment management as per

Section L.18.3.4.2.6.

M.5.2.5 Cost Management

M.5.2.5.1 The degree to which the proposed approach to cost innovation ensures best value is delivered to the government as per Section

L.18.3.5.1.

M.5.2.5.2 The degree to which the proposed approach to cost control as it relates to Labor Rates, Overhead and Task Order-Level costs ensures best value to the government as per Section L.18.3.5.2.

M.5.2.6 Task Order Management

M.5.2.6.1 The degree to which the proposed approach to staffing of task orders will ensure timely delivery of all work products and effective management of changing requirements as per Section L.18.3.6.1.

M.5.2.6.2 The degree to which the proposed approach to quality control of task orders will provide quality assurance on all deliverables as per

Section L.18.3.6.2.

M.5.2.6.3 The degree to which the proposed approach to managing communications pertaining to task orders will provide effective management of task orders and provide requisite transparency as per

Section L.18.3.6.3.

M.5.2.7 Information Management

M.5.2.7.1 The degree to which the proposed information technology (IT) infrastructure approach is logical, feasible and likely to support timely and accurate project and contract performance information as well as internal management processes as per Section L.18.3.7.1.

M.5.2.7.2 The degree to which the proposed approach to managing invoice related interface will ensure accurate and timely delivery of invoice related data as per Section L.18.3.7.2.

M.5.2.7.3 The degree to which the proposed IT approach demonstrates full understanding of contract and security requirements as per Section

Section M - Page 12

L.18.3.7.3.

M.5.3 Key Personnel Capability Evaluation

The Key Personnel Capability Factor as detailed in Section L.18.4 will be evaluated according to the degree to which the Key Personnel meet the education, experience, management and leadership as it relates to the area of responsibility for the requisite position.

M.5.3.1 National Program Manager per J-1.1

M.5.3.2 National Business Operations Manager per J-1.2

M.5.3.3 National Human Resources Manager per J-1.4

M.5.3.4 National Contract Administration Manager per J-1.3

M.5.3.5 National Procurement and Subcontracts Administration Manager per J-1.5

Key Personal Evaluation Criteria (all positions):

The degree to which the proposed Key Personnel meet or exceed the minimum

Education requirements.

Experience requirements.

Management and Leadership requirements.

M.5.4 Transition Management Capability Evaluation

The Transition Management Capability Sub-Factor will be evaluated for a thorough understanding of the effort involved, as per Section L.18.5, including:

M.5.4.1 The degree to which the Contractor’s assumptions, per Section L.18.5.1 are logical, realistic and reasonable.

M.5.4.2 The degree to which the proposed Team structure will foster a smooth and seamless transition for the NISC IV program and individual agency customers as per Section L.18.5.2.

M.5.4.3 The degree to which the Contractor understands and is able to articulate the scope for the transition and aligns with NISC IV contract as per Section

L.18.5.3.

M.5.4.4 The degree to which the proposed schedule is realistic and would meet transition deadlines and the needs of the NISC IV PMO as per Section

L.18.5.4.

Section M - Page 13

M.5.4.5 The degree to which the proposed readiness reviews, metrics and Risk

Mitigation strategies will help mitigate transition related risks as per Section

L.18.5.5.

M.5.4.6 The degree to which the proposed transition staffing and resourcing plan will ensure smooth transition as per Section L.18.5.6.

M.5.4.7 The degree to which the proposed approach to Change Management will facilitate successful transition as per Section L.18.5.7.

M.5.4.8 The degree to which the plan details its approach to specific transition related Assumptions as per section L.18.5.8.

M.5.4.9 The degree to which the proposed approach to Invoicing facilitates a smooth invoicing process as per section L.18.5.9.

M.5.4.10 The degree to which the proposed approach to procuring facilities and space ensure successful transition inclusive of assumptions J-13 as per Section

L.18.5.10.

M.5.4.11 The degree to which the proposed approach to tracking Government-

Furnished Equipment/Property (GFE/P) ensure successful tracking of all equipment and property as per Section L.18.5.11.

M.5.4.12 The degree to which the proposed approach to Security meets FAA standards and requirements as per Section L.18.5.12.

M.5.4.13 The degree to which the proposed approach to transitioning Task Orders, ensure successful transition of all Task Orders and ensure smooth execution as per Section L.18.5.13.

M.5.5 Management Approach Factor and Sub-Factor Calculation

M.5.5.1 Each of these four (4) Management Approach Sub-Factors will be scored separately.

M.5.5.2 Each of the four (4) Management Approach Sub-Factors will be awarded from zero (0) to five (5) points.

M.5.5.3 Each Management Sub-Factor and/or Sub-Factor of the Sub-Factor score will be derived by multiplying the points awarded by the Sub-Factor and/or

Sub-Factor of the Sub-Factor weight (see Table M.4) and then dividing that total by five (5). The four (4) sub-factor scores will then be added together to generate the Management Factor score: Zero (0) being the least favorable and fifty-five (55) the most favorable, using single decimal point rounding.

Section M - Page 14

Management Sub-Factor and/or Sub-Factor/Sub-Factor Score

= ((Points Awarded) x (Sub-Factor and/or Sub-Sub-Factor Weight))/5

[for each of the four Management Approach Factor Sub-Factors]

Management Approach Factor Score = Program & Program/Corporate Structure Sub-Factor

Score + National Program Management Capabilities Sub-Factor Score [comprised of 7 sub-sub-factors] + Key Personnel Sub-Factor Score + Transition Management Sub-Factor Score

[0-55 points possible]

M.6 FUNCTIONAL FACTOR EVALUATION

The primary consideration in the Functional Factor Evaluation is the Offeror's demonstrated relevant experience and how this experience relates to NISC IV. This determination will be based upon an evaluation of prior experience performing tasks that meet or exceed the size, scope, and complexity of NISC IV work efforts as delineated in Section L.19.2 through L.19.5 of the SIR.

Experience obtained at the proposed entity/team level will be considered more relevant than experience gained at other corporate entity levels (e.g. sectors or divisions).

The Functional Evaluation Team will perform an evaluation of each Offerors’ Functional Proposal using information provided in Volume III of the Offeror's proposal. This team will then determine an overall score for the Functional Factor using the methodology outlined in this Section. Any

Offeror awarded zero points on two or more of the Functional Sub-Factors will be designated an

"Unacceptable" risk for the entire proposal and receive a score of zero for the Risk Factor.

The Functional Evaluation Factor will be comprised of four (4) Sub-Factors specifically correlated to four of the Functional Area Work Efforts contained in Section C.3.0 of the SIR. This Functional

Evaluation will consider the degree to which the Offeror has or has not demonstrated relevant experience performing the work in the listed contract(s) as it pertains to these Sub-Factors.

M.6.1 Functional Factor Sub-Factors

M.6.1.1 Implementation and Integration Planning and Support.

M.6.1.2 Engineering Support.

M.6.1.3 Environmental, Occupational, Safety and Health (EOSH) Support.

M.6.1.4 Information Technology (IT) Support.

Each of these four (4) Functional Factor Sub-Factors will be evaluated separately. All sub-factors will be weighted equally, each one being worth 5% of the overall total evaluated score. Each will be awarded from zero (0) to three (3) points. Each Functional Sub-Factor score will be derived based on the points awarded multiplied by five (5) then divided by three (3), The four (4) sub-factor scores will then be added together to generate the Functional Factor score; zero (0) being

Section M - Page 15 the least favorable and twenty (20) the most favorable using single decimal point rounding.

Functional Sub-Factor Score = ((Points Awarded to Functional Sub-Factor (0 to 3)) x 5)/ 3

[for each of the four Functional Factor Sub-Factors]

(Implementation and Integration Planning and Support Sub-Factor Score) + (Engineering

Support Sub-Factor Score) + (EOSH Sub-Factor Score) + (IT Support Sub-Factor Score) =

Functional Factor Score

[0-20 points possible]

M.7 PAST PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

A Past Performance Assessment will be accomplished via a survey consisting of seven (7) questions received from a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of eight (8) contacts provided by the Offeror in accordance with the criteria and instructions contained in Section L.24 of the SIR

(“compliant surveys”). Each question will be answered as either “yes” or “no”. Each survey will be evaluated as acceptable if four or more questions are answered “yes”. If four or more survey questions are answered “no”, the survey will be rated unacceptable. Based on the number of survey responses, the Offeror's Past Performance will be assessed as follows:

M.7.1 Past Performance Assessment Calculation

M.7.1.1 If the minimum number (or more) of compliant surveys are received and

50% or more of the received compliant surveys are evaluated as acceptable, the Offeror Passes and Past Performance will not factor into the

Offeror’s overall risk rating.

M.7.1.2 If the minimum number (or more) of compliant surveys are received and one or more but less than 50% of the received compliant surveys are evaluated as acceptable, the Offeror will not be able to achieve better than an overall Medium Risk rating.

M.7.1.3 If less than the minimum number of compliant surveys are received or none of the received compliant surveys are evaluated as acceptable, the

Offeror receives an overall Unacceptable Risk rating.

M.8 RISK EVALUATION

The Risk evaluation will consist of a Government analysis of each Offeror’s response to the final

SIR, any other input provided by sources both inside and outside the Government, any risk items independently identified by the Risk Evaluation Team, as well as any potential risks identified during the functional, management, and cost evaluations. Based upon the overall adjectival rating assigned by the Risk Evaluation Team, each Offeror will be assigned a Risk Factor score; zero (0) being Unacceptable and twenty-five (25) the Most Favorable.

Section M - Page 16

The Risk Factor evaluation will separately evaluate identified potential risks to successful performance by any Offeror of NISC IV work efforts as perceived by the Risk Evaluation Team.

Individual Risks identified within any aspect of the Offeror’s proposal, or from additional sources of information regarding that Offeror, will be evaluated as to their potential effect on cost, schedule, and work performance; likelihood of occurrence; and variability of outcome.

M.8.1 Minimum Risk Evaluation Criteria

At a minimum, risks, which will be evaluated accordingly, include, but are not limited to:

M.8.1.1 Noted inconsistencies and discrepancies within and between various volumes of each Offeror’s proposal;

M.8.1.2 Errors of omission;

M.8.1.3 Failure to properly follow instructions;

M.8.1.4 Unsubstantiated representations made by an Offeror in any aspect of the proposal; and

M.8.1.5 Anything identified as potentially impacting cost, schedule, or work performance under the NISC IV.

Following completion of the analysis of the risk items associated with each Offeror proposal, the

Risk Evaluation Team will assign adjectival descriptions to each risk item evaluated. Individual risk items will not be numerically scored.

M.8.2 Adjectival Descriptions

M.8.2.1 Unacceptable Risk: Based on the Offeror’s proposal, any Offeror awarded zero points on two or more of the Functional Sub-Factors, or a proposal deemed grossly deficient by the Contracting Officer (CO), or failure to comply with certain terms and conditions of the proposal will be designated an "Unacceptable" risk for the entire proposal and no further risk analysis will be conducted;

M.8.2.2 High Risk: Based on the Offeror's proposal, great potential exists for serious work performance problems including, but not limited to, work schedule disruptions, quality problems, and/or a substantial increase in contract costs incurred by the Government;

M.8.2.3 Medium Risk: Based on the Offeror's proposal, moderate potential exists for work performance problems including, but not limited to, work schedule disruptions, quality problems, and/or a commensurate increase in contract costs incurred by the Government; and, M.8.2.4 Low Risk: Based on the Offeror's proposal, minimal potential exists for

Section M - Page 17 work performance problems, including, but not limited to, work schedule disruptions, quality problems, and/or a limited increase in contract costs incurred by the Government.

The Risk Evaluation Team will assign an overall adjectival rating describing the risk to the

Government that has been identified in each proposal. The overall adjectival rating will be based on the Risk Team's qualitative and subjective determination regarding the composite magnitude, frequency, probability and potential impacts of identified risks on planned NISC IV work efforts.

The risk assessment is not a numerical summation of the number of risks elements identified. One risk item may be determined to be of such importance as to become the dominant element in assessing overall risk. Therefore, a single risk element may pose such a threat to successful performance of NISC IV requirements as to render the entire proposal as “high” risk or, conversely, a “low” risk proposal may have multiple risk elements.

M.8.3 Risk Factor Calculation

M.8.3.1 If the overall adjectival rating is “Unacceptable” the score will be zero (0)

M.8.3.2 If the overall adjectival rating is "High Risk" the score will be five (5)

M.8.3.3 If the overall adjectival rating is "Medium Risk" the score will be fifteen

(15)

M.8.3.4 If the overall adjectival rating is "Low Risk" the score will be twenty-five

(25).

M.9 COST EVALUATION

Volume IV, Cost Proposal – The Government will evaluate the TOP including the base period and each option period for reasonableness and realism. Cost realism will be evaluated for the proposed management costs only.

Reasonableness of proposed costs and prices – A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which a prudent person would incur in the conduct of a competitive business.

Cost realism means the costs in an Offeror's proposal:

Are realistic for the work to be performed;

Reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and

Are consistent with the various elements of the Offeror's management proposal.

For purposes of the best value determination, the FAA may adjust the TOP should the offeror:

Fail to use the prescribed rates and hours in section L.20.2; or

Section M - Page 18

Present indirect rates that cannot be validated by the DCAA

Failure to use the prescribed rates or hours, or present indirect rates that cannot be validated by

DCAA, may result in a risk assessment. The Government may compare the proposed costs and prices of each Offeror to those of the competing Offerors. It may also request Defense Contract

Audit Agency (DCAA) or other Government approved entities to audit the Offeror’s and subcontractors’ proposed costs. Proposed indirect rates that are inconsistent with audit findings may result in a risk finding.

M.10 ELIGIBILITIY FOR AWARD

M.10.1 Eligibility for Award Criteria

To be eligible for the Award, the Offeror must be determined to be responsible by the Contracting

Officer (CO). This section sets forth the factors that the CO will consider in making that determination. The Offeror’s financial statements required under Section L.20.4 will be reviewed in connection with such determination. In addition to submittal with the Offeror’s proposal, prior to actual award, the contractor must submit an updated acceptable “Organizational Conflicts of

Interest (OCI) Plan” (per Section L.17.5) and an updated acceptable “Small, Small Disadvantaged, Women-Owned and Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Small

Business Plan)” (per Section L.17.7) as part of Volume I, Sections E and G, to be eligible for the

Award. These plans are not part of the Best Value determination and the FAA reserves the right to communicate with an Offeror to establish acceptable OCI and Small Business Plans.

Prior to any award, the CO must make a responsibility determination regarding the apparent successful Offeror. The following will be considered in that determination:

M.10.2 Responsibility Determination Factors

M.10.2.1 Financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them.

M.10.2.2 Ability to comply with the required or proposed delivery or performance schedule, taking into consideration all commercial and Government business commitments.

M.10.2.3 A satisfactory performance record.

M.10.2.4 A satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics.

M.10.2.5 Organization, experience, accounting and operational controls, or the ability to obtain them.

M.10.2.6 Equipment and facilities sufficient to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them.

Section M - Page 19

M.10.2.7 Qualification and eligibility to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations.

End of Section M