RWSL FLS RCP Sec. M.pdf

Screening Information Request (SIR) No.: 693KA7-23-R-XXXXX

M-i

PART IV - SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

TABLE OF CONTENTS

M.1 CLAUSES AND PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE 1

M.2 RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATION 1

M.3 BASIS FOR AWARD 2

M.4 EVALUATION FACTORS AND ORDER OF IMPORTANCE 2

M.5 EVALUATION PROCESS OVERVIEW 3

M.7 FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR - VOLUME II 6

M.8 FACTOR 3: MANAGEMENT APPROACH – VOLUME III 7

M.9 FACTOR 4: COST AND PRICE FACTOR - VOLUME IV 9

M.10 FACTOR 5: SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN – VOLUME V 10

M.11 VOLUME VI – OFFER AND OTHER DOCUMENTS 10

M.12 EVALUATION RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS 11

M-1

M.1 CLAUSES AND PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

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.

AMS

CLAUSE TITLE DATE

3.2.4-31 Evaluation of Options April 1996

3.3.1-30 Progress Payments Not Included November

3.6.1-10 Evaluation of Contractor Participation in the FAA Mentor Protégé Program January 1999

M.2 RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATION

To be eligible for award, an Offeror must be determined by the Contracting Officer to be a responsible contractor in accordance with the FAA Acquisition Management System (AMS), Section T.3.2.2.7 – Contractor Qualifications. The FAA will consider the elements identified below to determine a potential contractor’s responsibility.

In accordance with AMS Section T.3.2.2.7, a responsible contractor:

(1) Has or can obtain adequate financial resources to perform a contract;

(2) Has the ability to meet any required or proposed delivery schedules;

(3) Has a satisfactory performance history;

(4) Has a record of integrity and proper business ethics;

(5) Has appropriate accounting and operational controls that may include, but are not limited to:

(a) Production control;

(b) Property control systems;

(c) Quality assurance programs;

(d) Appropriate safety programs; and

(6) Is qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws or regulations.

In addition to the above qualifications, the Offeror’s data submitted in response to Section L.8 will be considered to determine a potential contractor’s responsibility.

In accordance with AMS Section T.3.2.2.7.A.1.c, the CO may use the following sources of information to support responsibility determinations:

(1) Records and experience data, including verifiable knowledge of personnel within the contracting office, audit offices, contract administration offices, and other contracting

M-2 offices;

(2) The prospective contractor, including proposal information, questionnaire replies, financial data, information on production equipment, and personnel information; and/or

(3) Other sources such as publications, suppliers, subcontractors, customers of the prospective contractor, and financial institutions.

M.3 BASIS FOR AWARD

This acquisition is being conducted in accordance with the FAA Acquisition Management System (AMS). Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is determined to represent the best value to the FAA. Best value is defined as the proposal that presents the most advantageous offer to the FAA, based on the evaluation criteria in Section M. Under the best-value approach, the FAA assesses non-price/cost factors and price/cost based on the evaluation criteria in this section and their relative order of importance and selects the Offeror proposing the combination of non-price/cost factors and price/cost representing the best value to the FAA. The best value approach provides the opportunity for trade-offs between non-price/cost factors and price/cost and does not require an award to be made to either the Offeror submitting the highest-rated proposal or the Offeror submitting the lowest price/cost, although the ultimate award may be to either one of those Offerors.

The FAA intends to award one contract but reserves the right to award more than one contract or no contract as a result of this SIR.

M.4 EVALUATION FACTORS AND ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

The following five (5) Volumes will be used to evaluate the Offeror’s proposal. Each volume will be evaluated by a separate evaluation team.

Volume I – Factor 1: Technical Proposal Sub-Factor 1: Essential Design Solution Features Sub-Factor 2: System Maturity Sub-factor 3: System Test and Evaluation Approach Volume II – Factor 2: Past Performance Volume III – Factor 3: Management Approach Sub-Factor 1: Program Management Sub-Factor 2: Draft IMS (Integrated Master Schedule) Sub-Factor 3: Risk Assessment Volume IV – Factor 4: Cost and Price Proposal Volume V – Factor 5: Small Business Subcontracting Plan

Volume I (Technical Proposal) is significantly more important than Volume II (Past Performance). Volume II (Past Performance) is more important than Volume III (Management Approach). Volume III (Management Approach) is more important than Volume IV (Cost/Price Proposal). Volume IV (Cost/Price Proposal) is more important than Volume V (Small Business Subcontracting Plan). If an Unacceptable rating is given for Volumes II and/or V, the Offeror may be ineligible for award.

M-3

Within Volume I (Technical Proposal), Sub-Factor 1 (Essential Design Solution Features) is significantly more important than Sub-Factor 2 (System Maturity). Sub-factor 2 is more important than Sub-factor 3 (System Test and Evaluation Approach). Elements within each Sub- Factor will be individually evaluated and contribute equally to its parent Sub-Factor’s overall rating. Elements will not be individually scored. The ordering of Elements within the Sub- Factors does not indicate a relative order of importance.

As differences between non-price factors become smaller, the importance of the Volume III Cost and Price evaluation increase.

Volume II (Past Performance) will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis as described in M.7.

Within Volume III (Management Approach), Sub-Factor 1 (Program Management) is more important than Sub-Factor 2 (Draft Integrated Master Schedule). Sub-factor 2 is more important than Sub-factor 3 (Risk Assessment). Elements within each Sub-Factor will be individually evaluated and contribute equally to its parent Sub-Factor’s overall rating. The ordering of Elements within the Sub-Factors does not indicate a relative order of importance.

Volume V (Small Business Subcontracting Plan) will be evaluated on an acceptable/ unacceptable basis as described in M.10 Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

M.5 EVALUATION PROCESS OVERVIEW

The FAA will evaluate Offeror responses to the SIR and in accordance with the evaluation criteria for award as described herein. Each volume of the Offeror’s proposal will initially be reviewed to determine whether it meets the requirements of Section L and includes all the required information. Omission of information may be considered grounds for eliminating a proposal from further consideration.

Proposals with only general statements of understanding of the SIR requirements, or proposals with omissions, incomplete responses, unrealistic technical, schedule, or cost proposals, or inconsistencies, may be deemed reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence or a failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the SIR requirements. Information not in its appropriate section per the Section L instructions and not appropriately referenced may be deemed to have been omitted. The FAA therefore reserves the right to determine such proposals as ineligible for further evaluation and for contract award. The FAA also reserves the right to (i) reject any or all offers, (ii) waive any requirements, and (iii) accept minor irregularities and discrepancies if doing so is determined to be in the best interest of the FAA.

The FAA may, at any time and within its sole discretion, communicate with the Offerors orally or in writing during the course of the source selection process. The FAA reserves the right to conduct communications with one, some, all, or none of the Offerors. Any information obtained during communications may be used to clarify, substantiate, and validate information provided in an Offeror’s proposal. Communications with one or more Offerors does not require communication with all Offerors. Responses to communication requests may be treated the same

M-4 as information submitted with the written proposals and may serve as the basis for strengths, weaknesses, or risks. Offerors are advised that the FAA reserves the right to make an award based on initial proposals received without communications. Accordingly, Offerors are strongly encouraged to ensure that their proposals are complete and fully responsive to the SIR upon initial submission.

The FAA reserves the right to reject any request for any exceptions, deviations, or assumptions.

The FAA reserves the right to deem a statement that contradicts a SIR requirement an exception or deviation, whether or not the Offeror identifies it as such, and to do so without communication with the Offeror.

The FAA reserves the right to reject any exception taken to a term or condition of this SIR and to reject any proposal that includes such an exception.

During the evaluation, the FAA will perform the following activities:

• Evaluate the Offeror’s Volume I - Technical Proposal against the evaluation criteria provided in Section M.6. The FAA will then assign a qualitative rating to the Technical Proposal Factor based on Tables M.12.1 and M.12.2 in Section M.12.

• Evaluate the Offeror’s Volume II - Past Performance against the evaluation criteria provided in Section M.7. The FAA will then assign an acceptable or unacceptable rating to the Past Performance Factor based on Table M.12.3 in Section M.12.

• Evaluate the Offeror’s Volume III – Management Approach against the evaluation criteria provided in Section M.8. The FAA will then assign a qualitative rating to the Management Approach Factor based on Tables M.12.1 and M.12.2 in Section M.12.

• Evaluate the Offeror’s Volume IV - Cost and Price proposal against the evaluation criteria provided in Section M.9 to determine reasonableness, completeness, and consistency/traceability, as defined in M.9.

• Evaluate the Offeror’s Volume IV – Small Business Subcontracting plan against the evaluation criteria provided in Section M.10. The FAA will then assign an acceptable or unacceptable rating to the Subcontracting plan to the Subcontracting Factor based on Table M.12.4 in Section M.12

The FAA will compare the results of the evaluation of all volumes and perform a trade-off analysis to arrive at the best value determination for contract award.

M.5.1 COMPLIANCE REVIEW

Each Offeror’s proposal will be reviewed to determine compliance with the instructions provided in Section L. During the compliance review, each volume of the Offeror proposals will first be reviewed to determine whether it follows the requirements of Section L and includes the required information. Omission of information or proposals that do not conform to Section L requirements may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from award consideration or may impact the resulting evaluation ratings. The FAA may take these actions, in its sole discretion, without engaging in prior communication with the Offeror. Any pages in the proposals exceeding the page limit requirements identified in Section L will not be evaluated beyond the page limitation.

M-5

Failure to comply with all requirements and instructions of the Screening Information Request (SIR) may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award.

M.5.2 ELIMINATING PROPOSALS

If at any time during the evaluation process the FAA concludes that an Offeror is not likely to receive award, the FAA may eliminate the Offeror from further consideration for award. The FAA is not required to engage in communication with the Offeror prior to eliminating the Offeror from further consideration for award. Any Offeror eliminated from further consideration will be notified in writing by the CO after contract award.

M.6 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL FACTOR – VOLUME 1

M.6.1 Factor 1: Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria

Volume I will be evaluated using the factors, sub-factors (including sub-factor elements) listed below. An adjectival rating will be assigned to each Sub-Factor delineated below. Definitions of the adjectival ratings are provided in Table M.12.2. An overall adjectival rating will be given to Volume I, Technical Proposal, based on each Sub-Factor rating.

Evaluators will identify and evaluate each Technical Proposal Sub-Factor by assessing strengths, weaknesses, and risks noted for each Sub-Factor. These strengths, weaknesses and risks will be considered in the determination of adjectival ratings for each Sub-Factor in accordance with the definitions in Table M.12.1. Ratings will not be determined based on the quantity of strengths, weaknesses, and risks but will be based upon the overall impacts (positive and negative) of the combination of strengths, weaknesses, and risks. See Table M.12.2, Technical and Management Factor and Sub-Factor Ratings, for definitions of the associated scores.

Definitions of the strengths, weaknesses, and risks are provided in Table M.12.1.

The following are the evaluation Sub-Factors applicable to Volume 1 – Technical Proposal

Sub-Factor 1: Essential Design Solution Features

Sub-Factor 2: System Maturity

Sub-Factor 3: System Test and Evaluation Approach

M.6.1.1 TECHNICAL SUB-FACTORS

M.6.1.1.1 Sub-Factor 1: Essential Design Solution Features The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the components of the Offeror’s solution:

1) Element 1.1: Meets each of the requirements in SOW sections C.3.1.1, Compatibility with Existing Baseline of the RWSL System, and C.4.3, FLS Replacement Component

M-6

Requirements, items 1 through 12 only. (Item 13, CCR Requirements is not included for evaluation here.) Each of the requirements will be individually evaluated.

2) Element 1.2: As currently designed, will require further development to fully satisfy the functional and performance requirements specified in FAA-E-3001 Performance Specification, RWSL System and FAA-E-3002 Performance Specification, Field Lighting System (FLS). A design with qualitatively less extensive and/or less complex required changes will be rated higher.

M.6.1.1.2 Sub-Factor 2: System Maturity

The FAA will evaluate:

1) Element 2.1: The degree to which the Offeror has successfully installed the same solution as being offered in response to this SIR in any operational environment.

2) Element 2.2: Unshielded cable operational maturity: The degree and time that the Offeror’s technical solution has been functioning in an unshielded cable operational environment.

3) Element 2.3: The degree to which the Offeror’s solution is commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) equipment and does not require modification. If modification is needed, the degree of complexity and the quantity of necessary modifications to COTS equipment to meet the requirements of the SIR.

M.6.1.1.3 Sub-Factor 3: System Test and Evaluation Approach

In accordance with SOW Sections C.13 and C.14, the FAA will evaluate the following Sub-factor:

1) Element 3.1: The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed solution demonstrates an understanding of how the FAA plans to perform formal testing at MMAC, Key Site and other sites and how the proposal addresses the technical support required of the Contractor.

2) Element 3.2: The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates an effective production acceptance test and evaluation (PAT&E) process and how they will, for each delivered component, verify that the end items: i. Conform to applicable specifications, ii. are free of manufacturing defects and iii. are identical to the qualified hardware.

M.7 FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR - VOLUME II

The FAA will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine acceptable performance on contracts that were similar in size, scope, and complexity to the RWSL RCP requirements.

The FAA will evaluate the Offeror’s:

a. Demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet user needs, including cost, schedule, and performance.

M-7

b. The extent to which the Offeror met contract requirements. The assessment will consider items such as the Offeror’s history of forecasting and controlling costs and adhering to schedules.

c. Record of conforming to specifications and standards of good workmanship, reasonable and cooperative behavior, and professionalism.

d. Commitment to customer satisfaction, resource utilization including teams, turnover of key personnel, prior experience with management approach on similar delivered services, and business-like concern for the interest of the customer.

The FAA will assess the results of the Past Performance Surveys submitted by the Offeror’s customers. The Past Performance Surveys must be from those respective customers that represent the work described in the Offeror’s past experience.

The FAA will assess the Past Performance Survey responses received to determine the quality of services provided by the Offeror based upon feedback from the Offeror’s customers. The FAA reserves the right to contact each customer to obtain additional or clarifying information on how well the Offeror performed under the contract requirements, cost, schedule, and performance.

The FAA reserves the right to consider Past Performance data from other sources, including but not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and/or Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The FAA’s use of Past Performance data from other sources for one Offeror does not obligate the FAA to seek out or use Past Performance data from other sources for other Offerors.

Disclosure of Negative Information. If the FAA receives negative information that would have a significant effect on the likelihood of award to an Offeror, the CO will disclose the information and provide the Offeror a reasonable opportunity to respond. The FAA will consider the Offeror’s response, facts obtained from the questionnaire, interview, or other sources when evaluating Disputed or Negative Information.

FAA will rate the Past Performance as either Acceptable or Unacceptable in accordance with the definitions found in Table M.12.3.

M.8 FACTOR 3: MANAGEMENT APPROACH – VOLUME III

M.8.1 Factor 3: Management Approach Proposal Evaluation Criteria

The Offeror’s Volume III contains the Management Approach Factor Proposal and will be evaluated to assess each Offeror’s understanding of the work to be performed under the resultant contract.

Volume III will be evaluated using the Sub-Factors listed below. An adjectival rating will be assigned to each Sub-Factor delineated below. Definitions of the adjectival ratings are provided in Table M.12.2. An overall adjectival rating will be given to Volume III, Management Approach Proposal, based on each Sub-Factor rating.

M-8

Evaluators will identify and evaluate each Management Approach Sub-Factor by assessing strengths, weaknesses and risks noted for each Sub-Factor. These strengths, weaknesses and risks will be considered in the determination of adjectival ratings for each Sub-Factor. Ratings will not be determined based on the quantity of strengths, weaknesses, and risks but will be based upon the overall impacts (positive and negative) of the combination of strengths, weaknesses, and risks. See Table M.12.2, Technical and Management Factor and Sub-Factor Scores, for definitions of the associated scores.

The following are the evaluation Sub-Factors applicable to Volume III – Management Approach Proposal:

Sub-Factor 1: Program Management

Sub-Factor 2: Draft Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)

Sub-Factor 3: Risk Assessment

M.8.1.1 MANAGEMENT APPROACH SUB-FACTORS

M.8.1.1.1 Sub-Factor 1: Program Management The FAA will evaluate:

1) Element 1.1: The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed organization and processes demonstrates the ability to effectively manage the RWSL FLS RCP program cost, schedule, and performance. The degree to which the offeror’s approach to managing program issues and risks for escalation and resolution procedures is effective.

2) Element 1.2: The degree to which the proposed key personnel, identified in H.XX of this SIR, meet the requirements of Section J-X , RWSL FLS RCP Program Management Minimum Qualifications and possess the expertise and experience necessary to successfully accomplish the responsibilities of their respective position.

3) Element 1.3: The degree to which the Offeror provides a comprehensive and realistic approach to the SOW requirements for Quality Management, Earned Value Management and Configuration Management.

M.8.1.1.2 Sub-Factor 2: Draft IMS The FAA will evaluate:

1) Element 2.1: The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed IMS is comprehensive, achievable, and provides realistic dates for contractor proposed Section F deliverables and milestones, aligns to the technical approach, and fully considers risk.

M-9

M.8.1.1.3 Sub-Factor 3: Risk Assessment

1) Element 3.1: The degree to which the Offeror identifies critical and medium to high-risk efforts and develops realistic plans to address and mitigate them.

M.9 FACTOR 4: COST AND PRICE FACTOR - VOLUME IV

The FAA will evaluate the proposed pricing for all CLINs for reasonableness and balance, and review proposals for completeness, consistency, and traceability. In addition, cost type CLINs will be evaluated for realism. The FAA reserves the right to evaluate other CLINs for price realism. With respect to T&M rates, the FAA will evaluate the proposed fully burdened labor rates for reasonableness, but will not include the fully burdened labor rates in the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). In addition, the FAA will evaluate material prices proposed in the Price List for reasonableness. The FAA will evaluate Cost and Price in accordance with this Section and AMS Procurement Guidance T3.2.3, Cost and Price Methodology. Cost and Price Proposals will not be scored or rated.

M.9.1 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

In evaluating offers, the FAA will use a Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP includes the base period and all option periods. Evaluation of the Option Periods does not obligate the FAA to exercise any options. The TEP will be the sum of:

1. Firm-Fixed Price CLINs;

2. Not-to-Exceed (NTE) CLINs.

The TEP will be used in the trade-off evaluation to determine best value.

M.9.2 Reasonableness

The FAA will evaluate each cost and price proposal for reasonableness in accordance with AMS Policy 3.2.3 and AMS Procurement Guidance T3.2.3. A cost and price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

M.9.3 Realism

For cost type CLINs, the FAA will evaluate the realism of the proposed cost in accordance with AMS Policy Section 3.2.2 and AMS Procurement Guidance T3.2.3. The realism analysis will assess the compatibility of proposed cost and price with the proposed scope and effort and will determine whether the proposed 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 technical proposal. Realistic costs are verifiable, complete, accurate, and supported by an estimating methodology that is logical, appropriate, and adequately explained.

M-10

The FAA reserves the right to perform price realism on the Firm-Fixed-Priced CLINs in accordance with AMS T3.2.3. If the FAA conducts price realism analysis, the Offeror’s proposed Firm-Fixed price will not be adjusted as part of the Price Realism analysis. However, the results of the analysis will be used in assessing performance risk. The realism analysis will NOT be performed for those CLINs with NTE ceiling amounts.

M.9.4 Balance

The FAA will evaluate proposals to determine whether the Offeror’s proposal contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists where, despite a reasonable total evaluated price, the price of one or more labor categories or CLINs is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques, or the offer is so grossly unbalanced that its acceptance would be equivalent to allowing an advanced payment. Offerors are cautioned that a proposal may be rejected if unbalanced pricing exists and the FAA determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk.

M.9.5 Completeness/Consistency/Traceability

The FAA will review each cost and price proposal to determine whether it includes all required pricing information, aligns with summary pricing tables, provides adequate Basis of Estimates, and is traceable to supporting pricing details. The FAA reserves the right to require additional information. The FAA reserves the right to reject proposals lacking completeness, consistency, or traceability, which may result in the Offeror’s elimination from further consideration for award.

M.10 FACTOR 5: SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN – VOLUME V

The FAA will evaluate the Small Business Subcontracting Plan submitted by Offerors that are not small businesses.

The FAA will evaluate each Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan as either Acceptable or Unacceptable in accordance with Table M-12.4. The FAA will assess if the Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan adequately demonstrates a viable small business subcontracting methodology, establishes appropriate subcontracting goals, and meets SIR and AMS content requirements.

SBA certified small businesses are not required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Therefore, any Offeror that is a small business will receive an acceptable rating for this volume

If an Offeror receives a rating of Unacceptable, they must correct the deficiencies prior to contract award.

If the apparently successful Offeror fails to propose appropriate subcontracting goals, that Offeror may be ineligible for award.

M.11 VOLUME VI – OFFER AND OTHER DOCUMENTS

M-11

The FAA will evaluate the adequacy of the Offeror’s Offer/Other Documents based on the provision of signed agreement(s) or letters of intent with all proposed subcontractors binding the subcontractor for the performance of the specified proposed work under the Offeror’s proposal.

The FAA will evaluate the adequacy of the additional Offeror provided information based upon the following:

1) Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) have been adequately identified and, where there are any OCI concerns, an adequate proposal has been provided to remove these OCIs.

2) Responsibility/Financial capability will be evaluated to ensure the risk of default due to inability to financially support the efforts is negligible. Refer to Section L.8 Responsibility Determination of Prospective Contractors and Section L.18 VOLUME VI

– Offer and Other Documents, for the information Offerors must submit to support this determination.

3) There is a completed Representations and Certifications (Section K) with no discrepancies or issues that could affect the satisfactory accomplishment of the Contract.

4) In accordance with AMS clause 3.6.1-10 (January 1999), the FAA will evaluate proposed participation in the FAA Mentor-Protégé Program to determine the extent of developmental assistance to be provided by mentor firms to protégé firms under the FAA Mentor-Protégé Program. Participation in the Mentor-Protégé Program will be used to establish an Offeror’s commitment to the FAA’s Mentor-Protégé Program. Participation in the FAA’s Mentor-Protégé Program is voluntary. Participation in the Mentor-Protégé Program will be used to establish an Offeror’s commitment to the FAA’s Mentor-Protégé Program. If the offeror does or does not participate in the Mentor-Protégé Program, it will not affect the Offeror’s rating and the FAA will not assess any strengths, weaknesses, or risks for this element.

M.12 EVALUATION RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS

Table M.12.1: Definition of Strengths, Weaknesses, and Risk

Strength An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that would positively impact the performance and/or the on-time completion of the resulting contract, exceed minimum SIR requirements, and/or provide potential benefits to the FAA.

Weakness An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that would negatively impact performance and/or on-time completion of the resulting contract, fail to meet the minimum SIR requirements, and/or otherwise cause potential harm to the FAA.

Risk An aspect of an offeror’s proposal, that when assessed as to its probability of occurrence and its effect, presents an uncertainty as to the ability of the offeror to successfully perform the required effort and/or proposed approach within cost and schedule.

M-12

The Offeror’s Technical Proposal (Volume I) and Management Approach Factor (Volume III) will be rated based upon the following adjectival rating definitions:

Table M.12.2: Technical and Management Approach Factor Proposal Ratings

Rating Definition

Excellent The Offeror’s response is comprehensive and demonstrates the capability to perform the full range of requirements and work effort. The Offeror’s response significantly exceeds the SIR requirements and demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the SIR requirements. The combined impact of the strengths, greatly outweighs the combined impact of any weaknesses and/or risks.

Good The Offeror’s response is fully acceptable and appropriately responds to the full range of requirements and work effort. The Offeror’s response exceeds the SIR requirements and demonstrates a thorough understanding of the SIR requirements. The combined impact of the strengths outweighs the combined impact of any weaknesses and/or risks.

Satisfactory The Offeror’s response is appropriate and adequately addresses the full range of requirements and work effort. The Offeror’s response meets the SIR requirements and demonstrates an adequate understanding of the SIR requirements. The combined impact of the strengths is approximately equal to the combined impact of any weaknesses and risks.

Marginal The Offeror’s response does not respond adequately to the full range of requirements and work effort. The Offeror’s response does not clearly meet the SIR requirements and does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the SIR requirements. The combined impact of weaknesses and/or risk outweighs the combined impact of any strengths.

Poor The Offeror’s response does not meet the SIR requirement nor does it demonstrate an understanding of the SIR requirements and work effort. The Offeror’s response does not demonstrate the capability to support the FAA’s requirements. The combined impact of the weaknesses and/or risks greatly outweighs the combined impact of any strengths.

The Offeror’s Past Performance (Volume II) will be rated based upon the following rating definitions:

Table M.12.3: Past Performance Ratings Acceptable The Offeror demonstrates adequate past performance on work of similar size and complexity to this procurement within the past seven years. Offeror demonstrates a record of quality service, cost control, timeliness of performance, business relationship, personnel management, subcontractor management, and customer satisfaction.

Unacceptable The Offeror failed to demonstrate adequate past performance of similar size and complexity to this procurement within the past seven years.

Offeror failed to demonstrate a record of quality service, cost control, timeliness of performance, business relationship, personnel management, subcontractor management and/or customer satisfaction.

M-13

The Offeror’s Cost and Price Proposal (Volume IV) will not be scored or rated.

The Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Volume V) will be rated based upon the following rating definitions:

Table M.12.4: Small Business Subcontracting Plan Ratings Acceptable The Offeror’s response demonstrates a viable small business subcontracting plan that meets the specified subcontracting goals and the AMS clause 3.6.1-4 content requirements.

Unacceptable The Offeror’s response does not demonstrate a viable small business subcontracting plan and/or does not meet the specified subcontracting goals or the AMS clause 3.6.1-4 content requirements.

The Offeror’s Offer and Other Documents (Volume VI) will not be scored or rated.

END OF SECTION M