Section M - TACAN Antenna.pdf

PART IV-SECTION M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Screening Information Request (SIR) 693KA8-22-R-00001

M-1 | P a g e S c r e e n i n g I n f o r m a t i o n R e q u e s t ( S I R ) S e c t i o n M

693KA8-22-R-00001

“This contract may contain information considered sensitive unclassified information (SUI) and would merit protection from unauthorized disclosure under 5 U.S.C, Section 552(b)(4). No information shall be released except as authorized by the Contracting

Officer.”

M.1 Clauses

Clauses and Provisions Incorporated by reference (July 2019) (AMS 3.1-1)

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 (CO) will make the full text available, or Offerors and contractors may obtain the full text via the Internet at https://fast.faa.gov/contractclauses.

(End of Clause)

AMS Clause Number Title and Date

3.2.4-29 Evaluation Exclusive of Options (April 1996)

3.2.4-31 Evaluation of Options (April 1996)

3.3.1-30 Progress Payments Not Included (November 1997)

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

Program (January 1999)

3.11-47 Evaluation- F.O.B Origin (April 1999)

M.2 GENERAL

A board of qualified personnel will review each Offerors’ response to this solicitation, including all written proposals compliant with SIR instructions; communications, if any; and revised proposals, if any. The written solicitation responses comprise the following:

Solicitation Documents

Offeror’s Technical Qualifications Proposal (Volume I)

Section 1 - Overall Technical Capability

Section 2 - Task Order 002 – Engineering, Design & Development

Offeror’s Contract Management and Corporate Capabilities (Volume II)

Offeror’s Management Approach (Volume III)

Offeror’s Past Performance (Volume IV)

Offeror’s Price Proposal (Volume V)

Offeror’s SIR Sections and Miscellaneous (Volume VI) https://fast.faa.gov/contractclauses.cfm

M-2 | P a g e S c r e e n i n g I n f o r m a t i o n R e q u e s t ( S I R ) S e c t i o n M

“This contract may contain information considered sensitive unclassified information (SUI) and would merit protection from unauthorized disclosure under 5 U.S.C, Section 552(b)(4). No information shall be released except as authorized by the Contracting

Officer.”

SECTION K REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

The Contracting Officer will review the Offeror’s submitted SIR Section K, Representation and

Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors for compliance to Section L.5.2.6.5 (b)

Completed Request for Offer (RFO), SIR Section K, Representations, Certifications and Other

Statements of Offerors. This review will not be considered in the best value tradeoff, but may be used in the responsibility determination.

M.3 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

To be eligible for award, the Offeror must meet all requirements of the SIR and the Offeror’s proposal must be determined fair and reasonable. The FAA reserves the right to: (i) reject any and all offers; (ii) waive any requirements; and (iii) accept irregularities and discrepancies if the

FAA determines that it is in its best interest to do so.

The eligible Offeror providing the best value to the FAA will be selected for an award. The best value is defined as the proposal that presents the most advantageous solution to the FAA, based on evaluating the Offeror’s Technical, Management, and Past Performance factors (referred to as

“non-cost factors”) and the Price. This approach provides the opportunity for trade-offs between price and the Technical, Management, and Past Performance factors. The best value approach does not require an award to be made to either the Offeror submitting the highest-rated technical proposal or the Offeror submitting the proposal with the lowest price, although the ultimate award may be to either one of those Offerors.

Contract Management and Corporate Capabilities, Volume II, will be evaluated prior to evaluating any other proposal volume. The Contract Management and Corporate Capabilities

Volume II will receive a rating of Pass or Fail. Any Offeror that Fails Volume II will be eliminated from the competition, with no further evaluation.

Evaluation of offers will be based on the following factors:

Technical Factors - The evaluation of the two Technical Factors is based on Volume I of the

Offeror’s proposal:

a. Technical factor 1: Overall Technical Capabilities (M.5.1.1)

b. Technical factor 2: Task Order 002 Engineering, Design, and Development (M.5.1.2)

Management Factor - The Management Factor evaluation is based on Volume III of the

Offeror’s proposal:

a. Task Order 001 Program Management (M.5.3)

Past Performance Factor - The Past Performance Factor evaluation is based on Volume IV of the Offeror’s proposal:

a. Past Performance (M.5.4)

M-3 | P a g e S c r e e n i n g I n f o r m a t i o n R e q u e s t ( S I R ) S e c t i o n M

“This contract may contain information considered sensitive unclassified information (SUI) and would merit protection from unauthorized disclosure under 5 U.S.C, Section 552(b)(4). No information shall be released except as authorized by the Contracting

Officer.”

Price - The Price evaluation is based on Volume V of the Offeror’s proposal:

a. Price (M.5.5)

Order of Importance: Technical factors are significantly more important than the management factor. The management factor is more important than the past performance factor. Technical factors are of equal importance. As the differences in the non-cost factors between Offerors decrease, the price will become more important.

M.4 EVALUATION PROCESS

The FAA Evaluation Team will assess the written proposal responses using the evaluation methodologies established below. An offer must be submitted in accordance with the instructions in Section L.5.

The Management Evaluation Team (MET) will evaluate each Offeror’s Contract Management and Corporate Capabilities Volume II against the evaluation criteria provided in Section M.5.2 prior to evaluating any other proposal volume. The Contract Management and Corporate

Capabilities, Volume II, will receive a rating of Pass or Fail.

Any Offeror receiving a rating of Fail in Contract Management and Corporate Capabilities will be eliminated from the competition, with no further evaluation. All Offerors receiving a Pass in

Contract Management and Corporate Capabilities will continue through the evaluation process set forth in Section M.

During the evaluation process, the FAA will evaluate each Offeror’s capability to perform the efforts delineated in the Statement of Work (SOW) (Section C) and Task Orders 001 and 002.

The Offeror must be financially viable and otherwise responsible in accordance with the FAA

Acquisition Management System (AMS). To be eligible for the award, the Offeror must be technically and financially capable of performing the work.

1) Offers received will be evaluated against evaluation factors in Section M.5, based on information provided by the Offeror that is compliant with SIR requirements and, with respect to past performance, additional information that may be obtained from outside references and other points of contact.

2) The FAA Technical Evaluation Team (TET) will evaluate each Offeror’s Technical

Volume I against the evaluation criteria provided in Section M.5.1. The result of the evaluation will be two adjectival ratings, one for each factor, as defined in Section M.6.1.

3) The FAA MET will evaluate each Offeror’s Management Approach (Volume III) against the evaluation criteria provided in Section M.5.3. The result of the evaluation will be an adjectival rating as defined in Section M.6.1.

4) The FAA Past Performance Evaluation Team (PPET) will evaluate the Offeror’s Past

Performance (Volume IV) against evaluation criteria provided in Section M.5.4. The result of the evaluation will be an acceptable or unacceptable as defined in Section M.6.3.

M-4 | P a g e S c r e e n i n g I n f o r m a t i o n R e q u e s t ( S I R ) S e c t i o n M

“This contract may contain information considered sensitive unclassified information (SUI) and would merit protection from unauthorized disclosure under 5 U.S.C, Section 552(b)(4). No information shall be released except as authorized by the Contracting

Officer.”

5) The Price Evaluation Team (PET) will evaluate each Offeror’s Price Proposal (Volume

V) to determine reasonableness, completeness, and consistency/traceability, as defined in

M.5.5. For all CPFF work proposed, cost realism will be conducted using a Quantitative and Qualitative (Q&Q) analysis, in accordance with AMS Procurement Guidance

T.3.2.3, Cost and Price Methodology. The Q&Q analysis will result in the FAA calculating a Most Probable Cost (MPC) for all CPFF work. The MPC will be used in the calculation to determine the Total Evaluated Price (TEP), which will be used in the tradeoff analysis.

6) Evaluation findings and recommendations will be provided to the Source Selection

Official for the award decision.

COMMUNICATION WITH OFFERORS

The FAA may, at any time, communicate with Offerors on an individual basis to explain or clarify particular aspects of the competition or to seek additional information regarding Offeror’s submissions. Communication with potential Offerors may take place throughout the source selection process. The purpose of communications is to ensure mutual understandings between the FAA and the Offerors on all aspects of the procurement, including the Offeror’s proposals.

Information disclosed as a result of oral or written communication with an Offeror may be considered in the evaluation of an Offeror’s proposal.

The FAA may hold one-on-one meetings with individual Offerors to conduct communications and obtain a mutual understanding as it pertains to their Offers. One-on-one communications may continue throughout the process, as required, at the FAA’s discretion.

Communications with one Offeror do not necessitate communications with other Offerors.

The FAA will communicate with the Point of Contact (POC) identified by the Offeror for this purpose in accordance with Section L.4.3. The CO listed in Section L-1 is the FAA POC for all communications related to this SIR.

M.5 EVALUATION FACTORS

The following sections describe the FAA evaluation factors for each Volume.

M.5.1 VOLUME I - Technical Qualifications Proposal Evaluation

To evaluate the Offeror’s Volume I – Technical Qualifications Proposal Evaluation and assign ratings for each of the two Technical Factors, the FAA will:

a. Identify strengths and weaknesses for each Factor as defined in Section M.6.1; and

b. Rate each Factor as defined in Section M.6.1.

M-5 | P a g e S c r e e n i n g I n f o r m a t i o n R e q u e s t ( S I R ) S e c t i o n M

“This contract may contain information considered sensitive unclassified information (SUI) and would merit protection from unauthorized disclosure under 5 U.S.C, Section 552(b)(4). No information shall be released except as authorized by the Contracting

M.5.1.1 Technical Factor 1 – Overall Technical Capabilities

The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates its overall technical capabilities to meet all requirements as specified in the SOW (Section C), FAA E-

7869, and Section L.5.2.1 of the SIR.

M.5.1.2 Technical Factor 2 - Task Order 002, Engineering, Design, and Development

The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the proposed technical solution demonstrates:

a. The Offeror’s knowledge and understanding of the task order requirements.

b. The Offeror’s ability to provide the first article TACAN Antenna systems according to the Performance Specification, FAA-E-7869, that could be qualified as outlined in Task

Order 002.

c. The methodologies and analytical techniques that can fulfill the technical requirements to design, develop, and test the first articles of the TACAN Antenna.

d. The engineering process to be used to conduct the Technical Reviews to fulfill the deliverables in Task Order paragraphs 2.1.2.1, 2.1.2.2, and 2.1.2.3

e. That the Offeror’s approach to provide a hardware and software development process is mature and repeatable and the support environment will accomplish the requirements of the task order.

f. A staffing approach that fully demonstrates the ability to successfully accomplish each aspect of the requirements in the Statement of Work, ability to retain or quickly fill-in suitable staff to mitigate risk, and ability to provide a cross functional team that collectively possesses the knowledge in all functional areas and the ability to successfully accomplish the required tasks.

g. The Offeror’s ability accomplish the Development Assurance Level (DAL) requirements and CDRL deliverables – including, if applicable, by using services of another entity to accomplish the DAL requirements and CDRL deliverables within 60 days of contract award.

h. The experience and availability of Key Personnel as identified on the resumes and letters of commitment to support the task order.

M.5.2 VOLUME II – Contract Management and Corporate Capability Proposal Evaluation

The Offeror’s Contract Management and Corporate Capabilities (Volume II) will be evaluated using the descriptions listed below. The volume will not be numerically scored and will be evaluated as Pass or Fail as defined in Section M.6.2. Any Offeror that Fails Volume II will be eliminated from the competition, with no further evaluation.

The FAA will evaluate whether the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates:

a. Program management, contract administration, subcontract management, and personnel management experiences necessary to successfully manage all Task Orders issued under this contract as described in SOW Section C.3.

M-6 | P a g e S c r e e n i n g I n f o r m a t i o n R e q u e s t ( S I R ) S e c t i o n M

“This contract may contain information considered sensitive unclassified information (SUI) and would merit protection from unauthorized disclosure under 5 U.S.C, Section 552(b)(4). No information shall be released except as authorized by the Contracting

Officer.”

b. The ability to provide sufficient and appropriate personnel, materials, equipment, and facilities necessary to successfully complete all requirements in SOW Section C.3

M.5.3 VOLUME III - Management Approach Proposal Evaluation

To evaluate the Offeror’s Management Approach, Volume III, the FAA will:

a. Identify strengths and weaknesses as defined in Section M.6.1; and

b. Rate the Factor as defined in Section M.6.1.

The FAA will evaluate the Offeror’s Task Order 001 Program Management (Volume III) and

Program Management Plan (PMP) using the criteria listed below. The FAA will evaluate the:

a. Program Management processes the Offeror will use to support Contract Administration and Resource management capabilities.

b. Degree to which the PMP fulfills the requirements of CDRL A001 and conforms to the format and content prescribed in DID FAA-PM-01.

c. Degree to which the risk management approach will be able to identify, rate, track, and mitigate risks specifically about TACAN Antenna cost, schedule, resource, and technical risks associated with issued Task Orders.

d. Experience and availability of Key Personnel as identified on the resumes and letters of commitment to support the task order.

M.5.4 VOLUME IV Past Performance Proposal Evaluation

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance on recent contracts that were similar in size, scope, and complexity to this requirement. The FAA reserves the right to use past performance information to evaluate the responsibility of the contractor and to eliminate from the competition a contractor with a record of unsatisfactory past performance.

The FAA will evaluate the Offeror’s Past Performance (Volume IV), as well as that of major team members (as defined in Section L.5.2.4), as it relates to the probability of the successful accomplishment of the work requirements in the SOW and Task Orders of the SIR. The evaluation will consider both the relevance and quality of past projects.

The Government will review all past performance data submitted with the proposal and may contact any or all of the referenced companies/organizations and others to verify past performance information.

Offerors are advised that the FAA reserves the right to use, in the past performance evaluation, data provided by the Offeror, Past Performance Survey forms submitted by the Offeror’s

M-7 | P a g e S c r e e n i n g I n f o r m a t i o n R e q u e s t ( S I R ) S e c t i o n M

“This contract may contain information considered sensitive unclassified information (SUI) and would merit protection from unauthorized disclosure under 5 U.S.C, Section 552(b)(4). No information shall be released except as authorized by the Contracting

Officer.”

customer points of contract in accordance with L.5.2.4, and Supplemental Past Performance

Information. Supplemental Past Performance Information includes:

a. The Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS);

b. References and other points of contact with first-hand knowledge of an offeror’s performance on other FAA contracts; and

c. Other sources as deemed appropriate by FAA.

Offerors are reminded that although the FAA may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the FAA is not required to do so and the burden of providing thorough and complete past performance source data rests with the Offeror. Where discrepancies are found, the FAA reserves the right to apply its judgment to resolve such discrepancies without conducting communications with Offerors. Personal knowledge of the evaluators and data obtained from other sources may be considered.

The FAA reserves the right to consider a lack of recent and relevant past performance experience as an indication that the FAA can expect unacceptable performance. Recent and relevant past performance experience is experience from 2014 onward, as a prime contractor or team member, on a safety-critical project of a similar size, scope, and complexity as the effort identified in this

SIR.

The FAA will rate the Past Performance as either Acceptable or Unacceptable in accordance with the definitions found in Section M.6.3 of this document.

M.5.5 VOLUME V Price Proposal Evaluation

The FAA will perform a price analysis and may perform a cost analysis to determine if the

Offeror’s price is fair and reasonable. Price analysis examines and evaluates a proposed price without evaluating its separate cost elements and proposed profit. Cost analysis is the review and evaluation of the separate cost elements and proposed profit/fee of an Offeror's proposal. A price is reasonable if by its nature and amount it does not exceed what would be incurred by a prudent person in conducting competitive business.

M.5.5.1 Price Proposal

The FAA will evaluate Cost and Price in accordance with this Section and AMS Procurement

Guidance T.3.2.3, Cost and Price Methodology. Price Proposals will not be scored or rated.

The FAA will use a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) in evaluating offers. The TEP includes the base ordering period and all optional ordering periods. Evaluation of the Option Periods does not obligate the FAA to exercise any options. The TEP will be calculated by adding:

1. The proposed price for Task Order 001;

2. The Most Probable Cost (MPC) for the CPFF CLINs on Task Order 002; and

3. The NTE amounts provided for ODCs and travel on Task Order 002.

M-8 | P a g e S c r e e n i n g I n f o r m a t i o n R e q u e s t ( S I R ) S e c t i o n M

“This contract may contain information considered sensitive unclassified information (SUI) and would merit protection from unauthorized disclosure under 5 U.S.C, Section 552(b)(4). No information shall be released except as authorized by the Contracting

The proposed price for Task Order 001 and 002 will calculate automatically in the workbook, Attachment J-13. The amount calculated in the workbook by Offeror inputs for Task Order 001 will be used in the TEP. The MPC for Task Order 002 is the amount the workbook calculates for

Task Order 002, with any adjustments applied to the CPFF CLINs as a result of Quantitative and

Qualitative (Q&Q) analysis. The total amount for Task Order 002 calculated in the workbook will include the NTEs provided for ODCs and travel.

Reasonableness: The FAA will evaluate each price proposal for reasonableness in accordance with AMS Policy 3.2.3, AMS Procurement Guidance T3.2.3. A Price is reasonable if it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in conducting competitive business. In addition, all fully burdened labor rates as well as the material prices proposed in the Price List will be evaluated for reasonableness. The material prices and labor rates included in Task Order 002 will be included in the TEP; no other material prices or labor rates will be in included in the TEP.

Completeness/Consistency/Traceability: The FAA will review each Price Proposal to determine whether it includes all required pricing information, whether prices are consistent with described pricing methodology, and whether prices are traceable to the requirements outlined in Section C. Completeness will be determined based on the information requested in

Section L. The FAA reserves the right to require additional information or reject proposals lacking completeness, consistency, or traceability at its sole discretion.

Realism: A cost realism evaluation will be conducted on all CPFF CLINs (Task Order 002) to determine whether the proposed costs reflect a clear understanding of the requirements and are consistent with the various elements of the Offeror’s technical proposal. Realism is a determination that a proposed price is not so low that contract performance is put at risk from either a technical or cost perspective.

For Task Order 002, cost realism will be conducted using a Quantitative and Qualitative (Q&Q) analysis, in accordance with AMS Procurement Guidance T.3.2.3, Cost and Price Methodology.

The Q&Q analysis will result in the FAA calculating a MPC for Task Order 002. The MPC will be used to determine the Total Evaluated Price (TEP), which will be used in the tradeoff analysis.

The FAA reserves the right to perform price realism on FFP CLINs and T&M labor rates, in accordance with AMS Procurement Guidance T.3.2.3. No adjustments will be made to any FFP

CLIN or T&M labor rate. The FAA reserves the right to conduct cost analysis on labor rates if deemed necessary to support the price realism analysis. The price realism analysis may require the FAA to request additional information from the Offerors.

M-9 | P a g e S c r e e n i n g I n f o r m a t i o n R e q u e s t ( S I R ) S e c t i o n M

“This contract may contain information considered sensitive unclassified information (SUI) and would merit protection from unauthorized disclosure under 5 U.S.C, Section 552(b)(4). No information shall be released except as authorized by the Contracting

Officer.”

Balance: The FAA reserves the right to evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for balance. 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 (front-loaded). 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.5.5.2 Exceptions, Deviations, or Assumptions

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. The Government reserves the right to eliminate from the competition any Offeror whose proposal, takes exception, or deviates from a SIR requirement.

M.5.6 Completed Request for Offeror (RFO)

The Contracting Officer will review SIR Section A, Solicitation/Contract Form –AMS Form SF-

33 “SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD” to ensure the Offeror has completed blocks 13 through 18 as requested in Section L.5.2.6.5 (a).

M.6 EVALUATION RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS

M.6.1 Volume I and III: Technical Qualifications and Management Approach

The Offeror’s Technical Qualification, Volume I, and Management Approach, Volume III, will not be numerically scored. They will be rated as follows:

Table 1: Volume I and III Adjectival Ratings

Adjectival Rating Definition

Outstanding Proposal contains numerous strengths and no weaknesses, indicating that the proposed effort will significantly benefit the Government.

Very Good Proposal contains numerous strengths that outweigh any weaknesses identified, indicating the proposed effort will benefit the Government.

Acceptable Proposal contains strengths that equal the weaknesses identified, indicating the proposed effort will benefit the Government. A proposal which meets all requirements with no strengths and no weaknesses will be deemed acceptable.

Marginal Proposal contains numerous weaknesses that outweigh any strengths identified.

Unsatisfactory The Offeror’s proposal has no strengths and one or more weaknesses.

M-10 | P a g e S c r e e n i n g I n f o r m a t i o n R e q u e s t ( S I R ) S e c t i o n M

“This contract may contain information considered sensitive unclassified information (SUI) and would merit protection from unauthorized disclosure under 5 U.S.C, Section 552(b)(4). No information shall be released except as authorized by the Contracting

Officer.”

Table 2: Definitions

Rating Definition

Strength An element of the proposal that exceeds a requirement of the solicitation in a beneficial way to the FAA.

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

M.6.2 Volume II: Contract Management and Corporate Capabilities Ratings

The Offeror’s Contract Management and Corporate Capability, Volume II, will not be numerically scored. They will be rated as follows:

Table 3: Volume II Ratings

Rating Definition

Pass The proposed approach demonstrates an adequate capability to provide Contract Management of its employees and team members and successfully manage all Task Orders issued under this contract as described in SOW Section C.3; and

The proposed approach provides appropriate personnel and staffing plans (including all team members), materials, equipment, and facilities necessary to complete all Task Orders issued under this contract; and

The proposed approach indicates the Offeror has the corporate expertise necessary to execute activities as identified in SOW Section

C.3.1.

Fail The proposed approach does not demonstrate an adequate capability to provide Contract Management of its employees and team members to manage all Task Orders issued under this contract as described in

SOW Section C.3; or

The proposed approach does not provide the appropriate personnel and staffing plans (including all team members), materials, equipment, and facilities necessary to complete all Task Orders issued under this contract; or

The proposed approach does not indicate the Offeror has the corporate expertise, necessary to execute activities as identified in SOW Section

C.3.1.

M-11 | P a g e S c r e e n i n g I n f o r m a t i o n R e q u e s t ( S I R ) S e c t i o n M

“This contract may contain information considered sensitive unclassified information (SUI) and would merit protection from unauthorized disclosure under 5 U.S.C, Section 552(b)(4). No information shall be released except as authorized by the Contracting

M.6.3 Volume IV: Past Performance

Offeror’s Past Performance, Volume IV, will be rated as follows:

Rating Definition

Acceptable The Offeror’s record of recent and relevant past performance shows that the

FAA can expect acceptable performance. Based on the Government’s assessment of the Offeror’s past performance record, there is sufficient confidence that the Offeror will be able to successfully accomplish the work requirements in the SOW and Task Orders of the SIR. Little or no Government intervention may be required for the Contractor to achieve a satisfactory level of performance.

Unacceptable The Offeror’s record of recent and relevant past performance shows that the

FAA can expect unacceptable performance. Based on the Government’s assessment of the Offeror’s past performance record, there is insufficient confidence that the Offeror will be able to successfully accomplish the work requirements in the SOW and Task Orders of the SIR. Significant

Government intervention may be required for the Contractor to achieve a satisfactory level of performance.

END OF SECTION M