RWSL FLS RCP Section M.pdf

Screening Information Request (SIR) No.: 693KA7-24-R-00006

PART IV - SECTION M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Table of Contents

M.1 CLAUSES AND PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

M.2 RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATION

M.3 BASIS FOR AWARD

M.4 EVALUATION FACTORS AND ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

M.5 EVALUATION PROCESS OVERVIEW

M.6 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL FACTOR – VOLUME 1

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

M.8 FACTOR 3: MANAGEMENT APPROACH – VOLUME III

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

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

M.11 VOLUME VI – OFFER AND OTHER DOCUMENTS

M.12 EVALUATION RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS

M-i

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.18 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: Component Maturity Sub-Factor 3: Component Integration, System Test and Evaluation Approach Sub-Factor 4: Draft IMS (Integrated Master Schedule) Sub-Factor 5: Technical Risk Assessment

Volume II – Factor 2: Past Performance Volume III – Factor 3: Management Approach

Sub-Factor 1: Program Management Sub-Factor 2: 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 (Component Maturity). Sub-Factor 2 is more important than Sub-Factor 5 (Technical Risk Assessment). Sub-factor 5 is more important than Sub-Factor 3 (Component Integration, System Test, and Evaluation Approach). Sub-factor 3 is more important than Sub-factor 4 (Draft IMS (Integrated Master Schedule). 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 IV Cost and Price evaluation will increase.

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

Within Volume III (Management Approach), Sub-Factor 1 (Program Management) is more important than Sub-Factor 2 (Risk Assessment). 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.

Volume V (Small Business Subcontracting Plan) will be evaluated on an acceptable/ unacceptable basis as described in Sec. 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, at the FAA’s sole discretion. Communications with one or more Offerors

M-4 does not require communication with all Offerors. Responses to communication requests may be treated the same as information submitted with the written proposals and may serve as the basis for strengths or weaknesses. 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 provided in accordance with L.18.10 and which do not identify and provide benefit to the FAA.

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 Sec. M.6. The FAA will then assign a qualitative rating to the Technical Proposal Factor based on Tables M.12.1, M.12.2 and M.12.3 in Sec. M.12.

• Evaluate the Offeror’s Volume II - Past Performance against the evaluation criteria provided in Sec. M.7. The FAA will then assign an acceptable or unacceptable rating to the Past Performance Factor based on Table M.12.4 in Sec. M.12.

• Evaluate the Offeror’s Volume III – Management Approach against the evaluation criteria provided in Sec. M.8. The FAA will then assign a qualitative rating to the Management Approach Factor based on Tables M.12.1, M.12.2 and M.12.3 in Sec.

M.12.

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

• Evaluate the Offeror’s Volume V – Small Business Subcontracting plan against the evaluation criteria provided in Sec. M.10. The FAA will then assign an acceptable or unacceptable rating to the Subcontracting plan to the Subcontracting Factor based on Table M.12.5 in Sec. 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, M-5 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.

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 once the determination has been made 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 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.12.3. 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 and weaknesses noted for each Sub-Factor. These strengths and weaknesses 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 and weaknesses but will be based upon the overall impacts (positive and negative) of the combination of strengths and weaknesses. The Technical Volume as a whole will be evaluated for technical and schedule Risks. Evaluators will consider all risk limited to technical and schedule along with the risks provided in Sub-Factor 5 responses. The identified Risks will be considered in the determination of adjectival ratings for Sub-Factor 5 in accordance with the definitions in Tables M.12.1 and M.12.2. See Table M.12.3, Technical and Management Factor and Sub-Factor Ratings, for definitions of the associated scores.

Definitions of the strength and weaknesses 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: Component Maturity Sub-Factor 3: Component Integration, System Test and Evaluation Approach Sub-Factor 4: Draft Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) Sub-Factor 5: Technical Risk Assessment

M.6.1.1 TECHNICAL SUB-FACTORS

M-6

The FAA will evaluate each technical element for the degree to which the proposed solution meets the requirements, provides a sound approach, identifies, and mitigates any risks, and is able to perform within the schedule.

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:

Element 1.1: Meets each of the requirements in SOW sections C.3.2, Compatibility with Existing Baseline of the RWSL System, and C.5.2 FLS Replacement Component Requirements, items 1 through 12. Each of the requirements will be individually evaluated. Each will also be assessed for the degree of further development required.

1) Element 1.2: Satisfies the functional and performance requirements as specified in FAA- E-3001 Performance Specification, RWSL System and FAA-E-3002 Performance Specification, Field Lighting System (FLS). A solution with qualitatively less extensive and/or less complex required changes will be rated higher.

M.6.1.1.2 Sub-Factor 2: Component Maturity

The FAA will evaluate:

2) Element 2.1: The degree to which the Offeror has successfully installed similar proposed components as being offered in response to this SIR in any operational environment.

3) Element 2.2: The degree to which the Offeror’s solution is commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) equipment or software, or is a non-developmental solution already available and does not require modification. If modification is needed, the degree of complexity and the quantity of necessary modifications to COTS or non-developmental equipment or software to meet the requirements of the SIR.

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

In accordance with SOW Sections C.14 and C.15 the FAA will evaluate the following Sub-factor:

4) 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 testing and how the proposal addresses the technical support required of the Contractor.

5) Element 3.2: The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates an effective Production Acceptance Test and Evaluation (PAT&E) program 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

M.6.1.1.4 Sub-Factor 4: Draft Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)

6) Element 4.1: The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed IMS is comprehensive, achievable, and provides realistic dates for contractor proposed deliverables and milestones, including Section F.3 Milestones and Delivery Order #1 and #2 Milestones; aligns to the technical approach; provides a realistic approach to ensuring timeliness under IDIQ Requirements.

M.6.1.1.5 Sub-Factor 5: Technical Risk Assessment

7) Element 5.1: The degree to which the Offeror identifies all risks that could impact technical and schedule performance. The degree to which the Offeror clearly identifies the risk levels, along with justification of their ratings, and shows understanding of impact to the FAA system operation. The degree to which the Offeror provides risk mitigations that are realistic plans to address and mitigate all technical and schedule risks identified by the Offeror.

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

The FAA will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine acceptable performance on contracts ending no later than 3 years prior to the date of the Final SIR release that were similar in size, scope, and complexity to the RWSL RCP requirements.

The FAA will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance with respect to:

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

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. The assessment will consider the extent to which the Contractor exceeded expectations and the Contractor’s effective response to identified performance quality, cost control and schedule/timeliness issues.

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

M-8 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 or more Offerors 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.12.4.

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.12.3. The Management Approach Volume as a whole will be evaluated for cost and contract performance (different from technical or schedule performance) Risks. Evaluators will consider all cost and contract performance risks along with the risks provides in Sub-Factor 2 responses. The identified Risks will be considered in the determination of adjectival ratings for Sub-Factor 2 in accordance with the definitions in Tables M.12.1 and M.12.2. See Table M.12.3 An overall adjectival rating will be given to Volume III, Management Approach Proposal, based on each Sub-Factor rating.

Evaluators will identify and evaluate each Management Approach Sub-Factor by assessing strengths and weaknesses noted for each Sub-Factor. These strengths and weaknesses will be considered in the determination of adjectival ratings for each Sub-Factor. Ratings will not be determined based on the quantity of strengths and weaknesses but will be based upon the overall impacts (positive and negative) of the combination of strengths and weaknesses. See Table M.12.3, Technical and Management Factor and Sub-Factor Scores, for definitions of the associated ratings.

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

Sub-Factor 1: Program Management Sub-Factor 2: Risk Assessment

M-9

M.8.1.1 MANAGEMENT APPROACH SUB-FACTORS

M.8.1.1.1 Sub-Factor 1: Program Management

1) Element 1.1: The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed organization and processes demonstrate the ability to effectively manage and report on 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 provides the structure and process considerations to be effective.

2) Element 1.2: The degree to which the proposed key personnel, identified in Section H Clause 3.8.2-17 of this SIR, meet the requirements of Attachment J-15, RWSL FLS RCP Labor Category Descriptions and 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; Cost, Schedule and Performance management; and Configuration Management.

M.8.1.1.2 Sub-Factor 2: Risk Assessment

4) Element 2.1: The degree to which the Offeror identifies all cost and contract performance (different from technical or schedule) risks that could impact contract performance and provides realistic plans to address and mitigate the medium and high risks. The degree to which the Offeror clearly identifies the risk levels and shows understanding of impact to the Contract. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed risk mitigations address both Contract and Program success.

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)

M-10

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. The proposed price for Delivery Order 001, including the NTE amounts provided for travel and ODCs; and

2. The FAA-calculated Most Probable Cost for Delivery Order 002, including the NTE amounts provided for travel and ODCs.

The labor rates and Bill of Materials prices will be evaluated for reasonableness, but not included in the TEP.

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 or 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.

M.9.3 Realism

The FAA will evaluate the realism of the proposed cost for Delivery Order 001and Delivery Order 002 in accordance with AMS Policy Section 3.2.3 and AMS Procurement Guidance T3.2.3, using a Qualitative and Quantitative Team (Q&Q). 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. This analysis will result in a Most Probable Cost (MPC) which will be used in the trade-off decision and may not be the same as the proposed cost.

The FAA reserves the right to perform price realism on the fully burdened labor rates and Delivery Order 001 in accordance with AMS T 3.2.3. If the FAA conducts price realism analysis, the Offeror’s proposed price and rates 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 any NTE 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

M-11 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. In such instances, the FAA may reject a proposal and eliminate the Offeror from further consideration without any prior communication with the Offeror. The eliminated Offeror will be notified after contract 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-12.5. 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 the winning 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

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) All 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

M-12 inability to financially support the efforts is negligible. Refer to Section L.8 Responsibility Determination of Prospective Contractors and Section L.18 VOLUME IV–Cost and Price Proposal, 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. 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 and Weaknesses

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, including but not limited to, by necessitating additional FAA resources to complete the effort.

Table M.12.2: Definition of Risk and Risk Levels

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.

High Risk Highly likely to cause significant decreases in performance or increases in cost and/ or schedule, even with increased Contractor emphasis and mitigation, and increased Government monitoring.

Medium Risk Could potentially cause some decreases in performance or increases in cost and/ or schedule. However, increased Contractor emphasis and mitigation, and increased Government monitoring may be able to overcome difficulties

Low Risk Limited potential to cause decreases in performance or increases in cost and/ or schedule. Normal Contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will probably be sufficient to overcome difficulties.

M-13

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.12.3: 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.

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.

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.

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 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 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.12.4: Past Performance Ratings

Acceptable The Offeror demonstrates adequate past performance on work of similar size and complexity to this procurement within the past three years.

Offeror demonstrates a record of quality service, cost control, timeliness of performance, business relationship, personnel management, subcontractor management, and customer satisfaction.

M-14

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

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.12.5: 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