R-00023 Section M.pdf

693KA8-21-R-00023

PART IV - SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 3.1-1 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

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

REFERENCE

TITLE

3.2.2.3-34 Evaluating Offers for Multiple Awards (July 2004)

3.2.4-31 Evaluation of Options (April 1996)

3.3.1-30 Progress Payments Not Included (November 1997)

3.11-50 No Evaluation of Transportation Costs (April 1999)

M.2 BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government intends to award to the Offeror whose proposal represents the best value and is the most advantageous to the Government. In determining best value, the Government may, in accordance with AMS 3.2.2 Source Selection, employ a tradeoff process allowing for award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically rated offer.

The Government will evaluate Management, Technical, Past Technical Performance, and Price.

The Technical Proposal factor is more important than Past Technical Performance factor. The Past

Technical Performance factor is more important than the Management Proposal factor. The

Technical Proposal factor, Past Technical Performance, and Management Proposal factors are collectively more important than Price. To the extent that two (2) or more Offerors are rated comparably in those sections, the Price factor becomes more significant.

(1) Under the Management Proposal factor, Transition (Sub-factor 1.2) is more important than Management Approach (Sub-factor 1.1).

(2) Under the Technical Proposal factor, Staffing (Sub-factor 2.1) is more important than

Quality Assurance (Sub-factor 2.2).

(3) Under Past Technical Performance factor, Relevant Past Experience and Performance

(Sub-factor 3.1) is more important than Related Information (Sub-factor 3.2).

The Government will also consider risk in its determination of best value. Subjective judgment on the part of the FAA is implicit in the evaluation process. The risk assessment is intended to aid https://fast.faa.gov/contractclauses.cfm the source selection process by adding more information to the best value determination. Best value will be based on the following:

(1) Technical Evaluation results and ranking of Offerors

(2) Price Evaluation

(3) Risk Assessment

While the FAA source selection evaluation team will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by nature, is subjective and professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

M.3 INFORMATION AND CONSIDERATIONS AFFECTING VENDOR PROPOSAL

SUBMISSIONS

(a) This acquisition will employ best practices and procedures for competitive negotiated procurements as authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Acquisition

Management System (AMS).

(b) All offers will be screened initially to determine if they are in compliance with the Screening

Information Request (SIR) procurement response instructions described in Section L. These instructions include the requirement that Offerors only respond to one Service Area specific

SIR as a Prime Contractor. The FAA reserves the right to eliminate all offers submitted by an

Offeror if these instructions are not followed or if the Offeror does not clearly demonstrate understanding of the requirements of the SIR. In the event a proposal is rejected, a notice will be sent to the Offeror stating the reason(s) that the proposal will not be given further consideration. This Section M provides the criteria by which Offerors’ proposals will be evaluated.

(c) Each proposal will be evaluated on the basis of its written submissions and price information described in Section L. Separate technical and price proposals are required as described in

Section L.

(d) All Offers will be subjected to a detailed evaluation by the Combined Evaluation Team (CET).

The CET is a combined team consisting of both the Price Evaluation Team (PET) and

Technical Evaluation Team (TET) members.

(1) Volume 1, Offer, Other Documents, and Pricing. Price proposals will be evaluated in accordance with SIR Section M.7, Price Evaluation.

(2) Volume 2, Management, Technical, and Past Technical Performance will be subjected to a detailed evaluation by the Technical Evaluation Team (TET) that will rate proposals in accordance with Section M.6, Technical Evaluation.

(e) Technical proposals will be evaluated and rated in accordance with pre-established evaluation factors. These factors are listed in M.6, Technical Evaluation.

(f) The Price Evaluation Team (PET) will not have access to technical proposals during the initial detailed evaluation. Likewise, the Technical Evaluation Team (TET) will not have access to price proposals during the initial detailed evaluation. After completion of the initial detailed evaluation, the technical and price evaluation teams may have access to the other team’s proposals only as authorized by the Contracting Officer. At this time, a consolidated PET and

TET team will evaluate best value as indicated in M.5 below.

(g) Because several proposals are anticipated, uniformity of proposals is essential to assure a fair and accurate assessment of each offer. All proposals must be submitted in accordance with

Section L and must conform to all the terms and conditions of the SIR. Failure to conform to all requirements expressed may be cause for rejection without further evaluation or discussion.

(h) Additional information may be requested from the Offeror whose proposal the FAA considers to represent the overall best value. The information may clarify or supplement, but not basically change the proposal as submitted. The FAA reserves the right to award a contract based on initial offers received, without discussions or negotiations. For this reason, each initial offer should be submitted on the most favorable terms from the standpoint of technical approach and price.

(i) In accordance with clause 3.2.2.3-19 of this SIR, the FAA reserves the right to limit Offerors participating in the competition to only those most likely to receive a contract award.

M.4 EVALUATION OF OFFERS

(a) The Offeror must provide adequate and specific information in their proposal. A proposal may be eliminated from further consideration if the proposal is so grossly and obviously deficient as to be unacceptable without further evaluation. Some examples of proposal deficiency are as follows: failure to sign Standard Form 33; missing any segments, volumes, or certifications;

submittal does not represent a reasonable effort to address all elements of the SIR or clearly demonstrate that the Vendor understands the requirements of the SIR.

(b) Tiered Evaluation: In order to provide opportunities for small businesses and to ensure that

FAA requirements are met, the acquisition strategy for this procurement is anticipated to use a tiered evaluation of Offerors with the following tiers:

(1) Small Businesses

(2) Other Than Small Businesses

Tiered evaluation of offers is a process by which the FAA promotes small business participation while providing the FAA a means to continue the procurement if small business participation is insufficient without issuing another SIR.

The FAA will proceed with the evaluation of Offerors and award within the lowest tier found to contain adequate competition among technically acceptable offers. Adequate competition exists when two (2) or more responsible Offerors, competing independently, submit priced offers that satisfy the Government’s expressed requirement. If only one (1) proposal is received in a lower tier, this offer from a lower tier may compete with higher tiered submissions in order to achieve adequate competition.

Each Offeror may be considered as a Prime Contractor for only one (1) Service Area award but have the ability to pursue subcontracting opportunities on other Service Area awards without restriction. The FAA will only recognize one (1) Prime Contractor per offer. Under the first tier, Small Business Offerors are reminded that in accordance with AMS clause 3.6.1-

7 Limitations on Subcontracting, at least 50% of the work must be performed by employees of the Prime Contractor. Under the second tier, and in accordance with Section I Clause 3.6.1-4

Small, Small Disadvantaged, Women-Owned and Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small

Business Subcontracting Plan (July 2019), “(c) The Offeror, upon request by the Contracting

Officer, must submit and negotiate a subcontracting plan, where applicable, that separately addresses subcontracting with small business, small disadvantaged business, women-owned small business and service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns”.

(c) Alternate proposals will not be evaluated. In the event a proposal is rejected, a notice will be sent to the Offeror stating the reason(s) that the proposal will not be given further consideration.

M.5 SUMMARY OF OVERALL EVALUATION PROCESS

Price, Management, Technical, and Past Technical Performance factors are evaluated as set forth herein. The CET will consider tradeoffs between technical factors and price, keeping in mind that non-price factors are significantly more important than price in determining the overall best value to the FAA. The CET will not meet until the PET and TET team have completed their respective evaluations.

(a) Management, Technical, and Past Technical Performance Evaluation. The Management, Technical, and Past Technical Performance volume will henceforth be referred to as the

Technical proposal/volume. Technical proposals will be evaluated by the TET in order to determine whether the minimum requirements of the Statement of Work (SOW) have been met.

(b) Technical proposals that have been evaluated to meet the minimum requirements, as identified in the SOW, will then be further evaluated and rated according to their ability to exceed the requirements identified in the SOW and the evaluation factors listed in Section M.6. Technical ratings are then ranked in preparation for a best value determination. Technical proposals that have been evaluated and determined to not meet the minimum requirements as identified in the SOW will be eliminated from further consideration.

(c) Risk Assessment. The Government will assess the risk associated with conducting business with each Offeror. This risk assessment will be completed after the technical evaluation. The risk assessment will be used to help determine best value for the government.

(d) Price Evaluation. The Price Evaluation Team (PET) will evaluate offers in accordance with

M.7 below. Unlike technical proposal submissions, price proposals will not be rated.

(e) Best Value Determination. Using the results from the TET, PET, and Risk Assessment, the

Source Selection Official will select for award the offer that provides the greatest overall value to the FAA. A tradeoff between technical and price may be made, in which case, the lowest total evaluated price offer may not provide the greatest overall value to the Government.

To be eligible for award, the Offeror must be determined to be financially viable and found to be responsible by the Contracting Officer (CO) prior to the award of any resultant contract (refer to

Section L.5.1.5).

M.6 TECHNICAL EVALUATION

M.6.1 Evaluation Criteria

The evaluation factors listed below are intended to determine the vendor’s capabilities to effectively and efficiently provide Security Officer Services to the FAA.

(1) Factor 1 – Management Proposal:

(i) Sub-Factor 1.1 – Management Approach

This sub-factor will be evaluated on the degree to which the proposed management approach, subcontracting arrangements, and Offeror organization will effectively and efficiently oversee guard services. Similarly, the degree to which the Offeror proposes efficient and effective management efforts regarding day-to-day, as well as emergency or contingency operations, will be evaluated. The Offeror’s Management Plan, as required in Section C.17.1, L.6.1, L.6.1.1.1 and L.6.1.1.2, will also be evaluated under this sub-factor.

(ii) Sub-Factor 1.2 – Transition

This sub-factor will be evaluated based on the degree to which the proposed transition methodology, timeline, staffing, and staff qualifications and training will ensure a timely, effective, and efficient transition of guard services. The Offeror’s Transition

Plan, as required in Section C.17.2, L.6.1.2.1, L.6.1.2.2, L.6.1.2.3, and L.6.1.2.4 will also be evaluated under this sub-factor.

(2) Factor 2 – Technical Proposal:

(i) Sub-Factor 2.1 – Staffing

This sub-factor will be evaluated based on the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed staffing processes and procedures effectively and efficiently satisfy the requirements stated in Section C.5, C.6, L.6.2.1, L.6.2.1.1, L.6.2.1.2, L.6.2.1.3, and L.6.2.1.4.

Proposed measures regarding temporary additional staffing, maintenance of staff certifications and records control will also be evaluated here for effectiveness and efficiency.

(ii) Sub-Factor 2.2 – Quality Assurance

This sub-factor will be evaluated based on the degree to which the Offeror proposes strategies for effectively and efficiently ensuring that the quality of service provided under the contract is of the highest level according to Section C.18, L.6.2.3, L.6.2.3.1, and L.6.2.3.2. Proposed measures regarding the supervision of security officers and quality control will also be evaluated here for effectiveness and efficiency.

(3) Factor 3 – Past Technical Performance Proposal:

(i) Sub-Factor 3.1 – Relevant Past Experience and Performance

In accordance with L.6.3.1, this sub-factor will be evaluated based upon the completed

L.1 attachments and the receipt of attachment L.2 questionnaires completed by customers, assessing the performance of the Offeror on relevant contracts that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to this SIR. The contracts selected by the

Offeror must demonstrate that the Offeror has an understanding of the work to be performed. The Government will determine the relevance of a past performance project/contract by analyzing the following and comparing it to the SIR:

(a) “Scope” by considering the type of service provided (i.e., “Is the project/contract for security officer services?”);

(b) “Magnitude” by considering various measures such as, but not limited to, any or all of the following: number of productive hours per year, number of

CSO personnel to support the effort, and total contract value; AND

(c) “Complexity” by considering various measures such as, but not limited to, any or all of the following: whether or not CSOs are armed; type of CSO qualifications and training requirements; type of permit, licensure and certification requirements in performance of the effort; typical duties/responsibilities required of security force; type of protection required

(e.g., interior and exterior building protection vs. exterior-only protection and gate access control); and the number and geographic dispersion of service sites under a single project.

(ii) Sub-Factor 3.2 – Related Information

This sub-factor will be evaluated based on the Offeror’s related information (awards, certifications, etc.) that complements the services required under this SIR in accordance with L.6.3.2. If there is no related information, the Offeror must affirmatively state that it possesses no related information and provide detailed information on how the program will be managed. No related information will result in a neutral rating for this sub-factor.

M.6.2 Evaluation Ratings

Factors will be rated by the evaluation team on the rating scale shown below.

Excellent

Good

Satisfactory

Marginal

Unsatisfactory

M.6.2.1 MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL EVALUATION RATINGS

The ratings relate to the following definitions:

RATING DESCRIPTION

Excellent

The offeror’s response to the topic is comprehensive and demonstrates the capability to perform the full range of requirements and work effort. Few, if any, areas for improvement can be cited. The combined impact of strengths far outweighs the combined impact of any weaknesses.

Good

The offeror’s response to the topic is fully acceptable and appropriately responds to the full range of requirements and work effort. A few minor weaknesses may be noted. The combined impact of the strengths outweighs the combined impact of any noted weaknesses.

Satisfactory

The offeror’s response to the topic is appropriate and addresses adequately the full range of requirements and work effort.

Although there may be some weaknesses and areas in need of improvement, these are offset by strengths in other areas.

Marginal

The offeror’s response does not respond adequately to the full range of requirements and work efforts. Offeror’s response is weak in several areas with no corresponding offset in other areas. The combined impact of weaknesses outweighs the combined impact of any strengths.

Unsatisfactory

The offeror’s response to the topic is inadequate and does not demonstrate a satisfactory understanding of the requirements and work efforts. The proposal does not demonstrate the capability to support the Government’s needs. The combined impact of the weaknesses and deficiencies far outweighs the combined impact of any strengths.

M.6.2.2 PAST TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS

The past technical performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated relevant record of performance in meeting the contract’s requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each offeror after evaluating the Offeror’s past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract’s requirements.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. First, FAA will evaluate the offeror’s past experience to determine how relevant an effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection.

“Relevancy” is defined as those contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity under similar conditions which consider those aspects of an offeror’s contract history that would provide the greatest ability to measure whether the Offeror will satisfy this procurement.

(1) Offerors’ past performance projects will be assigned a relevancy rating ranging from

“Very Relevant” to “Not Relevant” in accordance with the Past Technical

Performance Relevancy Ratings described below.

(2) The FAA reserves the right to contact and verify past technical performance information with references provided on the Past Performance Questionnaires, and to use any other past performance information available. Additionally, past performance data may be obtained through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System

(PPIRS), the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or similar systems, other Government departments and agencies, program managers, contracting officers, and other sources known to the Government (including commercial sources) including references other than those identified by the offeror.

Offeror’s will be given the opportunity to address any negative performance information resulting from the past performance assessment inquiries.

(3) Offerors without a record of relevant past technical performance or for whom information on past technical performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and will be rated “Neutral” on Factor 3

– Past Technical Performance.

(4) Offerors will be given the opportunity to respond to any negative past performance information obtained by the FAA. The FAA will weigh Offeror responses in its past performance evaluations.

The second aspect of the past technical performance evaluation is a determination of how well the Offeror performed on the contracts. The Government will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to its performance confidence assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, the Government will assigned one of the Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings described below.

Past Technical Performance Relevancy Ratings:

RATINGS DESCRIPTION

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Partially Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Neutral No record exists - neither favorably nor unfavorably.

Past Performance Confidence Assessment:

RATINGS DESCRIPTION

Substantial

Confidence

Based on the offeror’s relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory

Confidence

Based on the offeror’s relevant performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a limited expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

Based on the offeror’s relevant performance record, the

Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence

(Neutral)

No relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

M.7 PRICE EVALUATION

The FAA anticipates that proposed prices received in response to this SIR will be determined fair and reasonable based on adequate price competition. Therefore, the FAA will conduct price analysis but reserves the right to conduct price realism in accordance with AMS T3.2.3. The PET will evaluate proposed pricing for reasonableness and review proposals for completeness, consistency, and traceability. Price proposals will not be scored or rated.

Reasonableness - The FAA will evaluate each price proposal for reasonableness in accordance with AMS Policy Section 3.2.3 and AMS Policy and Procurement Guidance

Section 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.

Completeness/Consistency/Traceability - The FAA will review each price proposal to determine whether it includes all required pricing information, aligns with summary pricing tables, and provides adequate and traceable supporting pricing details. The FAA at its sole discretion may require additional information or reject proposals lacking completeness, consistency, and traceability.

Additionally, the PET will verify that the Offeror’s and subcontractors proposed base labor rates

(wages) and fringe benefit (Health & Welfare) dollars are no less than the applicable prevailing rates for the applicable DOL Wage Determinations and applicable Collective Bargaining

Agreements.

For evaluation purposes, the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated by adding the total price for the base and all option periods. The evaluation of the option periods will not obligate the Government to exercise the option periods. The TEP will be the sum of:

(1) CLINs XXXX1A Transition. The FAA specified NTE amounts. The value per site will be applied to all offers in order to equally evaluate Transition Prices.

(2) CLINs XXXX1B, Basic Services. The Offeror’s proposed price for each contract period and location.

(3) CLINs XXXX2, TAS. The extended price for 80 hours of Temporary Additional

Services per site per contract year will be applied to all offers in order to equally evaluate the potential for Temporary Additional Services.

(4) CLINs XXXX3, ESS. The extended price for 16 labor hours of Emergency Security

Services per site per contract year will be applied to all offers in order to equally evaluate the potential for Emergency Security Services.

(5) CLINs XXXX4A, Other Security Officer Services. The extended price for 16 labor hours of Other Services per site per contract year will be applied to all offers in order to equally evaluate the potential for Other Services.

(6) CLINs XXXX4B, Travel. The FAA specified NTE amounts. The value per site per contract year will be applied to all offers in order to equally evaluate possible Travel expenses.

(7) CLINs XXXX5, Training. The extended price for 80 labor hours of Training per site per contract year will be applied to all offers in order to equally evaluate possible

Training expenses.

(8) CLINs XXXX6, Random Screening. The Offeror’s proposed price for each contract period and location.

(9) CLINs XXXX7, Roving Patrol. The Offeror’s proposed price for each contract period and location.

The extended price for each T&M CLIN (XXXX2, XXXX3, XXXX4A and XXXX5) will be calculated by multiplying the government specified hours by the Offeror’s proposed fully burdened rate for each applicable CLIN. The specified hours are for evaluation purposes only and do not represent a commitment from the FAA.

M.8 RISK ASSESSMENT

(a) A risk assessment will be accomplished at the conclusion of the overall evaluation process (i.e., evaluation of Factors 1 through 3). The risk assessment is intended to aid the source selection process by adding more information to the best value determination.

(b) The risk assessment will be conducted by the TET. Members of the TET who identify potential risks are to communicate those risks to their team lead for consideration and inclusion in the assessment. Risks may also be identified by any other team or evaluator throughout the evaluation process. Any such risks must be referred to the TET Lead for assessment by the TET.

(c) Risks will be evaluated both as to their potential impact on the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the contract and the likelihood of the risk occurring. This analysis will evaluate risks in terms of their potential impact on cost, schedule, and work performance and the potential magnitude of any such impact, while simultaneously addressing the probability of undesirable impacts. Risks may be identified within any aspect of the Offeror’s proposal, or from any additional sources of information.

(d) The risk assessment will determine what overall level of risk the entire proposal includes.

Determining the overall level of risk is not a numeric average or summation of the number of risks identified. Rather, the level of overall risk associated with a proposal depends on the types of risks identified, the likelihood of their occurrence, and the magnitude thereof. For example, the team could conclude that a proposal with many risks has an overall low level of risk because those risks will have little impact on the Offeror’s ability to perform. On the contrary, the team could find a single risk whose impact is so large that it jeopardizes the Offeror’s ability to perform.

(e) Categories to be used in assessing risk to the Government are:

Categories Description

Low Risk

Limited potential to cause minimal decreases in performance or increases in schedule. Normal contractor effort and normal

Government monitoring will likely be sufficient to overcome difficulties.

Moderate

Risk

Moderate potential to cause some decreases in performance or increases in schedule. However, increased contractor emphasis and increased Government monitoring may be able to overcome difficulties.

High Risk

Likely to cause significant decreases in performance or increases in schedule even with increased contractor emphasis and increased Government monitoring.

M.9 DEFINITIONS

The following definitions are applicable:

(1) Deficiency - An aspect of the proposal, such as a descriptive statement, or the lack of requested information, demonstrating that the proposal fails to meet the requirements of this solicitation.

(2) Clarification - Normally used to eliminate minor irregularities or apparent clerical mistakes in the proposal or presentation. Clarification of apparent clerical mistakes includes correction of statements within the offer; it does not include the providing of additional information not previously contained within the proposal.

(3) Strength - An aspect of the technical proposal that has a positive impact on the

Government. Examples of strengths include a solution that exceeds SIR requirements, or an especially thoughtful, innovative, or unique solution or approach to an evaluation area. Likewise, a strength may also be a unique solution, approach, or process to a technical or management problem or requirement that saves time, material, and could potentially reduce cost.

(4) Weakness – An aspect in the proposal that, if the Offeror was selected, would have a negative impact on the Government.

(5) Substantiated - Competent, documented evidence that supports or otherwise verifies proposal claims, approaches, and contents.