OES SIR Sect M.pdf

693KA8-23-R-00004

M-i

PART IV – REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FOR

SCREENING INFORMATION REQUEST

Solicitation Number: 693KA8-23-R-00004

Ontario Engineering Services (OES)

DEPRATMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Ontario Engineering Services (OES)

PART IV – REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE

M-i

FAA ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (AMS) CLAUSES AND

PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (JULY 2019)

AMS 3.1-1 - CLAUSES AND PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

(JULY 2019)

GENERAL INFORMATION

NOTICES TO OFFERORS

M.2.1.1 Award Without Communications

M.2.1.2 Rejection of Nonresponsive and Unrealistic Proposals

M.2.1.3 Right Not to Award or to Make Multiple Awards

EVALUATION PROCESS

M.2.2.1 Initial Screening

M.2.2.2 Communications with Offerors

M.2.2.3 Exclusion from Competition

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

USE OF BEST VALUE/TRADE OFF METHODOLOGY

ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

TECHNICAL CAPABILITY EVALUATION PROCESS (REFERENCE L.11.3) 4

FACTOR T1, RESPONSE TO THE CONSTRUCTION/INSTALLATION

FLOATING CREW SAMPLE TASKS (REFERENCE L.11.3.1)

FACTOR T2 – RESPONSE TO TECHNICAL SUPPORT (REFERENCE

L.11.3.2)

M.4.2.1 Subfactor T2.1 – Construction/Installation Projects Management and Engineering Support Approach (reference L.11.3.2.1)

M.4.2.2 Subfactor T2.2 – Rack Fabrication, Mod and Site Kit Assembly, and Rack Subassembly Production Capability Plus Management and Support Approach (reference L.11.3.2.2)

M.4.2.3 Subfactor T2.3 – Property/Warehouse Management and Acquisition Support Approach (reference L.11.3.2.3)

MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

EVALUATION PROCESS (REFERENCE L.11.4)

FACTOR M1 - RESPONSE TO KEY PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS

(REFERENCE L.11.4.1)

FACTOR M2 - RESPONSE TO CONTRACT MANAGEMENT (REFERNCE

L.11.4.2)

M.5.2.1 Subfactor M2.1 – Master Contract Management Plan and Management Controls Approach (reference L.11.4.2.1)

M.5.2.2 Subfactor M2.2 – Earned Value Management and financial Controls Approach (reference L.11.4.2.2)

PART IV – REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-ii

M.5.2.3 Subfactor M2.3 – Management Plan Narratives Approach (reference (L.11.4.2.3)

DEFINITIONS OF ADJECTIVAL RATINGS

FACTOR PP.1– PAST PERFORMANCE PROPOSAL (VOLUME III)

EVALUATION PROCESS (REFERENCE L.11.5)

GENERAL

DEFINITIONS

M.7.2.1 Recent

M.7.2.2 Relevance

ASSESSMENT

RATING

PRICE EVALAUTION PROCESS

GENERAL

PRICE RESONABLENESS

COMPLETENESS/CONSISTENCY/TRACEABILITY

BALANCE

PRICE REALISM

RESPONSIBLITY DETERMINATION

ORGANIZATION CONFLICT OF INTEREST (OCI) MITIGATION

LIST OF TABLES

Table M-1. AMS Clauses Incorporated by Reference

Table M-2. Order of Importance

Table M-3. Definitions of Strength and Weakness

Table M-4. Definitions of Adjectival Ratings

Table M-5 Past Performance Rating Definitions

PART IV – REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1

FAA ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (AMS) CLAUSES AND

PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (JULY 2019)

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 will make the full text available, or offerors and contractors may obtain the full text via Internet at: https://fast.faa.gov/contractclauses.cfm.

Table M-1. AMS Clauses Incorporated by Reference

Number Description Date 3.2.4-31 Evaluation of Options April 1996

GENERAL INFORMATION

NOTICES TO OFFERORS

M.2.1.1 Award Without Communications

In accordance with the AMS, FAA reserves the right to award a contract based on initial offers received without communications or negotiations. For this reason, each initial offer should be submitted on the most favorable terms from the standpoint of technical and price.

M.2.1.2 Rejection of Nonresponsive and Unrealistic Proposals

FAA reserves the right to reject proposals that are nonresponsive to solicitation requirements or unrealistic in terms of promised outcomes or proposed price.

A 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 the requirements is nonresponsive to solicitation requirements.

A proposal that contains, in the FAA’s discretion, too many exceptions to the solicitation or one or more significant exceptions to the solicitation is nonresponsive to solicitation requirements. An exception is significant if it materially alters the terms under which the Offeror would perform or requires FAA to give up rights to which it would otherwise be entitled.

•A proposal that proposes unrealistic prices. A proposal contains unrealistic prices if the prices are so low that contract performance is put at risk from either a technical or cost perspective.

M.2.1.3 Right Not to Award or to Make Multiple Awards

The FAA reserves the right to make no award in response to the solicitation if FAA determines that this action is in its best interest. The FAA reserves the right to make multiple awards in response to the solicitation if FAA determines that this action is in its best interest.

PART IV – REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-2

EVALUATION PROCESS

M.2.2.1 Initial Screening

Upon receipt, FAA will examine proposals to ensure that they are complete and comply with all terms of the solicitation. Proposals that are incomplete (e.g., missing volumes, appendices, or required charts) or do not comply with the terms of the solicitation (e.g., exceed applicable page limits or include price information in any place except the Price Proposal (Volume IV) will not be evaluated.

M.2.2.2 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.

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 and weaknesses. The FAA is not obligated to advise Offerors of weaknesses 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.

M.2.2.3 Exclusion from Competition

During the evaluation process, 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, FAA may eliminate the Offeror from further consideration for award. Within five (5) days after an offeror’s elimination from the competition, FAA will notify the eliminated Offeror of the offeror’s elimination and the basis for that elimination. The FAA reserves the right, but is not required, to issue another SIR after the elimination of any Offeror.

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

USE OF BEST VALUE/TRADE OFF METHODOLOGY

FAA will use the best value/trade-off methodology in accordance with AMS Procurement Guidance T.3.2.2.3 to select the successful Offeror(s). The best value/trade-off methodology examines the price and non-price factors specified below to determine which Offeror(s’)’s proposal(s) as a whole represents the best value to the Government. 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 either of these Offerors.

PART IV – REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-3

ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

Table M-2 provides the rating methodology and order of importance for the Technical and Management Volumes.

Table M-2. Order of Importance

Evaluation Factor Rating Methodology Relative Importance

Technical Proposal Adjectival More important than Management. Proposal

Factor T1 – Construction/Installation Floating Crew Sample Tasks

Subfactor Roll-Up to Adjectival Technical Proposal Rating

More important than Factor T2

Subfactor T1.1 – Response to Alaska Sample Task

Adjectival Equal in Importance

Subfactor T1.1 – Response to Mountain Top Sample Task

Adjectival

Subfactor T1.1 – Response to Flat Land Sample Task

Adjectival

Subfactor T1.1 – Response to Airport Cable Loop Sample Task

Adjectival

Factor T2 – Technical Support Subfactor Roll-Up to Adjectival Technical Proposal Rating

Less important than Factor T1

Subfactor T2.1 - Construction/Installation Projects Management and Engineering Support Approach

Adjectival Equal in Importance

Subfactor T2.2 - Rack Fabrication, Mod and Site Assembly, and Rack Subassemblies Plus Management and Support Approach

Adjectival

Subfactor T2.3 – Property/Warehouse Management and Acquisition Support Approach

Adjectival

Management Proposal Adjectival Less important than Technical Proposal

Factor M1 – Key Personnel Resumes Subfactor Roll-Up to Adjectival Management Proposal Rating

More Important than Factor T2

Subfactor M1.1 – Program Manager Qualifications

Adjectival Most important Subfactor

Subfactor M1.2 – Installation Support Managers Qualifications

Adjectival Slightly less important than Subfactor M1.1, but more important than Subfactors M1.3 and M1.4

Subfactor M1.3 – Inventory / Warehouse Manager Qualifications

Adjectival Equal to Subfactor M1.4; less important than Subfactors M1.1 and M.2, and more important that Subfactors M1.5 and M1.6

Subfactor M1.4 – Rack Fabrication Production Manager Qualifications

Adjectival Equal to Subfactor M1.3; less important than Subfactors M1.1 and M1.2, and more important that Subfactors M1.5 and M1.6

Subfactor M1.5 – Lead Installation / Electronics Technician Qualifications

Adjectival Equal to Subfactor M1.6 and less important than Subfactors M1.1 through M1.4

Subfactor M1.6 – Senior Electronics Engineer Qualifications

Adjectival Equal to Subfactor M1.5 and less important than Subfactors M1.1 through M1.4

PART IV – REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-4

Table M-2. Order of Importance

Evaluation Factor Rating Methodology Relative Importance

Factor M2 – Contract Management Subfactor Roll-Up to Adjectival Management Proposal Rating

Less important than Factor T1

Subfactor M2.1 - Master Contract Management Plan and Management Controls Approach

Adjectival Equal in importance and more important to Subfactor M2.3

Subfactor M2.2 – Earned Value Management and Financial Controls Approach

Adjectival

Subfactor M2.3 - Management Plans (Quality Systems, Health and Safety, and Property) Approach

Adjectival Significantly less important than Subfactors M2.1 and M2.2

Combined, the weighted non-price proposals are significantly more important than price in determining the successful Offeror. The closer the Offerors are rated in terms of weighted non-price proposals (Technical and Management), the more important price becomes in determining the successful Offeror.

FAA will assess and rate Past Performance. FAA will not consider Past Performance in the best-value tradeoff; however, FAA will not award a contract to an Offeror with an unacceptable history of past performance and may eliminate an Offeror with an unacceptable history of past performance from competition under SIR Section M.7.

FAA will assess, but not rate, the Price Volume

FAA will assess, but not rate, Business Volume to ensure compliance with requirements and facilitate any responsibility determination(s). FAA will not assess or rate the Cover Page and Executive Summary.

TECHNICAL CAPABILITY EVALUATION PROCESS (REFERENCE L.11.3)

FAA will evaluate the Offeror’s Technical Proposal against the evaluation subfactors listed below.

Evaluators will identify strengths and weaknesses relative to the Technical Capability evaluation Factors and subfactors. The definitions of “strength” and “weakness” are listed in Table M-2.

The evaluators will assign adjectival ratings to each subfactor. The range of adjectival ratings and their definitions are listed in Table M-3. For Factors T1 and T2, the FAA will assign the Subfactor-level adjectival ratings from the underlying Subfactors and their relative weights. For Subfactors T1.1 through T1.4 and T2.1 through T2.3, the adjectival rating will be based upon the strengths and weaknesses identified. The FAA will assign the overall Technical adjectival rating based upon evaluators’ professional judgement and considering the adjectival ratings of the underlying Subfactors and their relative importance.

FACTOR T1, RESPONSE TO THE CONSTRUCTION/INSTALLATION FLOATING CREW

SAMPLE TASKS (REFERENCE L.11.3.1)

Factor T1 is comprised of the following Subfactors:

Subfactor T1.1: Alaska Sample Task

Subfactor T1.2: Mountain Top Sample Task

Subfactor T1.3: Flat Land Sample Task

Subfactor T1.4: Airport Cable Loop (ACL) Sample Task

PART IV – REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-5

The FAA will evaluate the responses to Section L.11.3.1 for the extent to which the Offeror’s response to each sample task:

Includes a schedule that is reasonable, based upon realistic assumptions, and includes delivery of all key artifacts;

Demonstrates a technical solution that is feasible and likely to result in the successful completion of work in accordance with all SIR requirements and within the proposed schedule; and

Demonstrates that the Offeror can identify applicable requirements, regulations, constraints, and stakeholders;

Demonstrates that the Offeror can identify and appropriately mitigate risks and challenges;

For the Airport Cable Loop Sample Task ONLY:

o Includes drawings that show a clear path as specified in Attachment L1; and o Includes information on manholes as specified in Attachment L1.

Demonstrates an approach to performing the sample task that is feasible and likely to result in successful performance.

FACTOR T2 – RESPONSE TO TECHNICAL SUPPORT (REFERENCE L.11.3.2)

M.4.2.1 Subfactor T2.1 – Construction/Installation Projects Management and Engineering Support Approach (reference L.11.3.2.1)

The FAA will assess the extent to which the Offeror’s narrative:

Demonstrates that the Offeror understands the FAA’s requirements with respect to Floating Crew Management as described in SIR Section C.7.2.1;

Demonstrates that the Offeror understands the FAA’s requirements with respect to Engineering Support as described in SIR Section C.7.2.2; and

Demonstrates an approach to performing the work is feasible and likely to result in successful performance.

M.4.2.2 Subfactor T2.2 – Rack Fabrication, Mod and Site Kit Assembly, and Rack Subassembly Production Capability Plus Management and Support Approach (reference L.11.3.2.2)

The FAA will assess the extent to which the Offeror’s description of its approach to Rack Fabrication:

Demonstrates that the Offeror understands the FAA’s requirements;

Demonstrates a feasible plan for completing FAE within the timeframe specified in SIR Section C.6.1.1;

Demonstrates that the Offeror understands the skills and level of effort required to assemble fabricated racks, mod kits, site kits, and rack subassemblies; and

Demonstrates an approach to the management and quality control that is likely to result in:

o The timely delivery of fabricated racks, mod kits, site kits, and rack subassemblies that satisfy specifications in accordance with SIR Section C.6..2; and o The maintenance of up-to-date drawings and recommendations in accordance with SIR Section C.6.2.

PART IV – REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-6

M.4.2.3 Subfactor T2.3 – Property/Warehouse Management and Acquisition Support Approach (reference L.11.3.2.3)

The FAA will assess the extent to which the Offeror’s description of its approach to Property/Warehouse Management and Acquisition Support:

Demonstrates that the Offeror understands the FAA’s requirements, including those set forth in AMS Clause 3.10.3-2 Government Property – Basic Clause (April 2022) (incorporated into Section I of this SIR);

Demonstrates that it has a Property Management System (PMS) that satisfies these requirements OR describes a feasible approach to obtaining and implementing a Government approved PMS that satisfies the requirements as described in Section C.5.1.1.

Demonstrates that the Offeror understands the FAA’s requirements Property and Ontario Warehouse Management as described in SIR Sections C.5.1.2 and C.5.2

Demonstrates that the Offeror understands the key tasks, constraints, and problems and

Demonstrates an approach to performing the work that is feasible and is likely to result in successful performance.

MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

EVALUATION PROCESS (REFERENCE L.11.4)

FAA will evaluate the Offeror’s Management Proposal against the evaluation factors listed below.

Evaluators will identify strengths and weaknesses and other findings relative to the Management Approach evaluation factors. The definitions of “strength” and “weakness” are listed in Table M-2. The evaluators will assign adjectival ratings to each subfactor.

The range of adjectival ratings and their definitions are listed in Table M-3. For Factors M1 and M2, the FAA will assign the Subfactor-level adjectival ratings based upon the evaluators’ professional judgement and considering the adjectival ratings of the underlying Subfactors and their relative weights. For Subfactors M1.1 through M1.6 and M2.1 through M2.3, the adjectival rating will be based upon the strengths and weaknesses identified. The FAA will assign the overall Technical adjectival rating based upon evaluators’ professional judgement and considering the adjectival ratings of the underlying Subfactors and their relative importance.

FACTOR M1 - RESPONSE TO KEY PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS (REFERENCE

L.11.4.1)

FAA will evaluate the degree to which the Offerors proposed personnel demonstrates that the individual proposed satisfies the labor category requirements (set forth in Attachment J5) for the labor category under which she/he is proposed; and demonstrates that the individual has specialized technical experience, relevant credentials, or management experience that will enable him/her to successfully perform in a leadership role.

Resumes Proposal against the evaluation factors listed below. Evaluators will identify strengths and weaknesses relative to the Personnel Qualifications evaluation factors. The definitions of “strength” and “weakness” are listed in Table M-2.

The evaluators will assign adjectival ratings to each subfactor. The range of adjectival ratings and their definitions are listed in Table M-3. The adjectival rating will be based upon the strengths, weaknesses, and other findings identified. The FAA will assign the overall Resumes Proposal adjectival rating based upon evaluators’ professional judgement and considering the adjectival ratings of the underlying Factors and their relative importance.

Factor M1 is comprised of the following Subfactors:

PART IV – REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-7

Subfactor M1.1: Program Manager Qualifications;

Subfactor M1.2: Installation Support Managers Qualifications (Two resumes required: one for NEXCOM projects and one for ACL projects);

Subfactor M1.3: Inventory/Warehouse Manager Qualifications;

Subfactor M1.4: Rack Fabrication Production Manager Qualifications;

Subfactor M1.5: Lead Installation/Electronics Technicians Qualifications (Three resumes required: two for NEXCOM projects and one for ACL projects. The resume must indicate the type of project, i.e., NEXCOM or ACL.); and

Subfactor M1.6: Senior Electronics Engineer Qualifications.

The FAA will assess the extent to which each resume:

Demonstrates that the individual proposed satisfies the labor category requirements (set forth in Attachment J5) for the labor category under which she/he is proposed; and

Demonstrates that the individual has specialized technical experience, relevant credentials, or management experience that will enable him/her to successfully perform in a leadership role.

FACTOR M2 - RESPONSE TO CONTRACT MANAGEMENT (REFERNCE L.11.4.2)

M.5.2.1 Subfactor M2.1 – Master Contract Management Plan and Management Controls Approach (reference L.11.4.2.1)

The FAA will assess the extent to which the Offeror’s narrative:

Demonstrates that the Offeror understands the FAA’s Master Contract Management Plan requirements as described in SIR Section C.4.1.1, and how the MCMP will be used as a management tool for execution of the contract; and

Demonstrates an approach to performing the work that is feasible and is likely to result in successful performance.

M.5.2.2 Subfactor M2.2 – Earned Value Management and financial Controls Approach (reference L.11.4.2.2)

The FAA will assess the extent to which the Offeror’s narrative, certifications (if applicable) and Integrated Master Schedule.

Demonstrate that the Offeror understands the FAA’s financial and earned value management requirements as described in SIR Sections C.4.2 and how the EVMS will be used as a management tool for execution of the contract;

Demonstrate that the Offeror has a certified EVMS or a system and a feasible plan to obtain certification in accordance with the AMS Clauses at 1.13-1 Notice of Earned Value Management System (July 2016) and 1.13-2 Earned Value Management System (July 2016);

Demonstrate that the Offeror understands the FAA’s Integrated Master Schedule requirements as described in Section C.4.2.3 and how the IMS will be used as a management tool for execution of the contract; and

Demonstrates an approach to performing the work that is feasible and is likely to result in successful performance.

PART IV – REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-8

M.5.2.3 Subfactor M2.3 – Management Plan Narratives Approach (reference (L.11.4.2.3)

The FAA will assess the extent to which the Offeror’s description of its approach to developing the management plans specified in Section C.4.1.2 – C.4.1.4 (Quality System Plan, Health and Safety Plan, Property Management Plan)

Demonstrates that the Offeror understands the FAA’s requirements; and

Demonstrates an approach to developing these plans that is feasible and likely to result in the timely delivery of plans that satisfy all contract requirements.

DEFINITIONS OF ADJECTIVAL RATINGS

The following definitions listed in Tables M-3 and M-4 will be used when evaluating the weighted non-price Volumes (Volumes I and II).

Table M-3. Definitions of Strength and Weakness

Strength An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that demonstrates a superior understanding of SIR requirements, exceeds SIR requirements, or is likely to provide added benefit to the FAA in terms of cost, schedule or the quality of work delivered.

Weakness An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that demonstrates that the Offeror does not understand SIR requirements, fails to address, or satisfy SIR requirements, or is likely to reduce the probability of successful performance.

PART IV – REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-9

Table M-4. Definitions of Adjectival Ratings

Rating Description

Excellent

• Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the technical requirements. Proposal contains many strengths. The combined impact of assessed strengths far outweighs the combined impact of any assessed weaknesses.

Good

• Proposal demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the technical requirements. Proposal contains strengths. The combined impact of assessed strengths outweighs the combined impact of any assessed weaknesses.

Satisfactory

• Proposal demonstrates an adequate understanding of the technical requirements. The combined impact of assessed strengths and the combined impact of assessed weaknesses are either offsetting, or have little or no bearing on technical performance.

Marginal

• Proposal demonstrates an inadequate approach and a misunderstanding of the technical requirements. Proposal contains weaknesses. The combined impact of assessed weaknesses and outweighs the combined impact of any assessed strengths.

Unsatisfactory

• Proposal demonstrates an unacceptable approach and a lack of understanding of the technical requirements. Proposal contains many weaknesses. The combined impact of assessed weaknesses far outweighs the combined impact of any assessed strengths.

FACTOR PP.1– PAST PERFORMANCE PROPOSAL (VOLUME III)

EVALUATION PROCESS (REFERENCE L.11.5)

GENERAL

The FAA will evaluate Past Performance to determine whether the Offeror has a history of acceptable performance on contracts relevant to the OES contract. FAA will assess relevance based on the information that the Offeror submitted pursuant to Section L.11.5.1. FAA will assess whether performance on contracts deemed relevant is acceptable based on the information in the Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) (Part B Attachment L3) received. The FAA retains the right to contact any references provided. If more than two PPQs arrive for a single contract identified by an Offeror, the FAA will only evaluate the first two (as time stamped by Outlook).

DEFINITIONS

M.7.2.1 Recent

Performance that is currently ongoing or completed within the last five (5) years from the release date of this SIR.

M.7.2.2 Relevance

FAA will assess the Offeror’s description of the past performance references (Volume III, Section 1) to determine whether each contract is relevant to OES contract in terms of any of the following:

Dollar Value: For the purposes of the Past Performance evaluation, a contract is relevant if the total average annual value of the work that the Offeror performed is $2,500,000 or more.

PART IV – REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-10

Scope: For the purposes of the Past Performance evaluation, a contract is relevant if it involves tasks similar to those in scope of OES Statement of Work (SOW) Sections C.6 or C.7.

Complexity: For the purposes of the Past Performance evaluation, a contract is relevant if the Offeror has performed/is performing on four (4) or more concurrent tasks.

If FAA determines that a contract cited in Volume III, Section L.11.5.1 is not relevant, then FAA will not assess any PPQ associated with that contract.

ASSESSMENT

If a contract is relevant to OES in terms of one (or more) of the bullets listed above, FAA will assess the PPQs associated with that contract to determine whether the Offeror has:

Performed the work according to specifications;

Adhered to contract schedules, including schedules for administrative aspects of performance (i.e., submission of invoices, reports, certifications);

Managed costs and delivered required outputs within budget;

Cooperated and communicated with its customers; and

Demonstrated an overall commitment to quality and customer satisfaction.

RATING

The FAA will assess each requirement listed in Section M.7.3 (above) and, then assign an overall rating of ”Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” based on whether the Offeror’s Past Performance submissions demonstrate a satisfactory performance history on recent and relevant work.

FAA may eliminate any Offeror that receives a rating of “Unacceptable” on Past Performance from further consideration for award. Refer to Table M-4 for Past Performance Rating Definitions.

Table M-5 Past Performance Rating Definitions

Rating Description

Acceptable

The Offeror’s record of past performance indicates there is very little risk associated with receiving quality products, timely services, and full contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Offeror’s experience indicate the Offeror will meet or exceed the requirements of the contract. The Contractor has demonstrated recent and relevant experience with projects of similar size, scope, and complexity.

Unacceptable

The Offer’s record of past performance indicates that there is some potential risk associated with receiving quality products, timely services, and contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Offeror’s experience indicate the Offeror may have some problems during performance of the delivery order. The Contractor has demonstrated limited recent and relevant experience with projects of similar size, scope, and complexity.

PART IV – REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-11

PRICE EVALAUTION PROCESS

GENERAL

FAA will conduct price analysis in accordance with AMS Procurement Guidance T3.2.3 Cost and Price Methodology (October 2007). In support of the best value trade-off analysis, the FAA will calculate a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for each Offeror’s proposal. The price analysis will consider the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) as well as the elements (hourly rates, escalation factors) that build up the TEP in the Price Evaluation Model (PEM). The TEP includes the base and all option periods and will be equal to the sum of the extended prices for the maximum quantities of all CLINs for all years as well as the government specified Not-to-Exceed (NTE) amounts. The evaluation of options does not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). Offeror’s proposed indirect rate entered into the “General” tab in the Section B Price Model is not used in calculating the TEP; however; the rate, if accepted, will be incorporated into Section B at contract award as the agreed upon indirect rate. The TEP will not include any assumptions using the T&M labor rates proposed or for any of the unpriced CLINs. If necessary, FAA may request additional documentation to validate compliance.

PRICE RESONABLENESS

The FAA will evaluate each price proposal for reasonableness in accordance with AMS Procurement Guidance T3.2.3. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. The FAA will also evaluate the reasonableness of the proposed unit prices for all the T&M labor category CLINs.

COMPLETENESS/CONSISTENCY/TRACEABILITY

The FAA will review each price proposal to determine whether or not it includes all required pricing information, prices are consistent with described pricing methodology, and prices are traceable to the requirements set forth under this SIR. Completeness will be determined based on the information requested in Section L. The FAA, at its discretion, might require additional information or reject proposals lacking completeness, consistency, or traceability.

BALANCE

The FAA will evaluate each price proposal for balance in accordance with AMS Procurement Guidance T3.2.3(A)(1)(e)(4) Unbalanced Offers. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more CLINs is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis methods. The FAA will evaluate all priced CLINs for balance, including the proposed unit prices for all the T&M labor category CLINs (X0010a through X0010dg). The FAA may, at its discretion, reject a proposal if the FAA determines the pricing proposal is materially unbalanced.

PRICE REALISM

In accordance with AMS Procurement Guidance T3.2.3(A)(1)(d)(3), the FAA reserves the right to perform price realism on any or all of the proposed CLIN prices, including the T&M labor rates. A price is realistic when it reflects a clear understanding of the requirement and is consistent with the various elements of the Offeror’s technical proposal. No adjustments will be made to the TEP or any FFP CLIN or T&M CLIN, including T&M labor rates. The FAA reserves the right to conduct cost analysis on labor rates if deemed necessary to support the price realism analysis. This may require the Government to request additional information to be obtained from the Offerors.

PART IV – REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-12

RESPONSIBLITY DETERMINATION

The CO will make a determination of Offeror responsibility in accordance with AMS Policy 3.2.2.2 requirements and the requirements below. Any Offeror that the CO determines is not “responsible” (as defined in AMS Policy 3.2.2.2 and herein) will be ineligible for award. In addition to the Offeror’s proposal Volume V Responsibility Determination Information (reference L.11.7.3), the FAA will investigate the profile of each Offeror through Dun and Bradstreet and other commonly used sources. To be eligible or award, the contractor must:

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

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

Have a satisfactory performance record;

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

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

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

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 an Official able to commit the company; and, Be qualified and eligible to receive award under applicable laws and regulations.

FAA only awards contracts to responsible Contractors. The Contracting Officer will make a determination of Offeror responsibility for any Offeror that appears likely to receive an award. An Offeror must be deemed responsible to be eligible for award. At a minimum, in order to be determined responsible, an Offeror must:

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

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

Have a satisfactory performance history;

Have a satisfactory record of integrity and proper business ethics;

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 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 tin making a responsibility determination.

PART IV – REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-13

ORGANIZATION CONFLICT OF INTEREST (OCI) MITIGATION

If the Offeror identifies any OCIs, the FAA will assess the proposed mitigation plan to ensure that it complies with the AMS clauses 3.1.7-1 Exclusion from Future Agency Contracts (July 2018), 3.1.7-2 Organizational Conflicts of Interest (July 2018), 3.1.7-4 Organizational Conflicts of Interest – Mitigation Plan Required (July 2018), and 3.1.7-5 Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest (July 2018).

FAA will not award a contract to an Offeror with an unmitigated conflict of interest.

End of Section M