PART I - SECTION C - DESCRIPTION/SPECS/WORK STATEMENT by EZSsWy

VIEWS: 2 PAGES: 23

									                                                                              SIR DTFAAC-12-R-00002

                                                                                              106 of 128


________________________________________________________________________________

                                       PART IV-SECTION L

              INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICE TO OFFERORS
L.1    INCORPORATION OF REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

This Screening Information Request is to only request the First of a Two Part Evaluation.
Certain representations and certifications must be made by the offeror and must be filled in as
appropriate. The signature of the offeror on the face page of this SIR/RFO constitutes the making of
certain representations and certifications, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (AMS) BUSINESS
DECLARATION, which is specifically required to be completed, signed and submitted with offer.
Award of any contract to the offeror shall be considered to have incorporated the applicable
representations and certifications by reference.

L.2    Questions:
       Contractor should submit inquiries related to this solicitation by writing or calling the
following (collect calls will not be accepted). All questions shall be submitted in writing, e-mailed
to:
                       FAA AMQ 210 Acquisition Division
                       ATTN: Ms Robin L. Shafer, Contracting Officer
                       6500 S. MacArthur Boulevard
                       P.O. Box 25082
                       Oklahoma City, OK 73125-4931
                       Phone: 405-954-3123

                      Email: Robin.Shafer@faa.gov

Oral explanations or instructions are not binding. Any information given to an offeror which
impacts the solicitation and/or offer will be given in the form of a written amendment to the
solicitation.

L.3 DIRECTIONS FOR SUBMITTING PROPOSAL(s)

Pursuant to the Technical Evaluation Plan for this requirement, the procurement process will involve the
evaluation of several areas. Evaluations involved will permit the FAA to select an offer that represents the
overall best value to the FAA in accordance with the terms and conditions of the SIR. For this acquisition,
there will be two parts to the evaluation process. The first part will consist of “minimally acceptable”
criteria and shall be rated as either “acceptable” or “unacceptable” Each factor must be found “acceptable”
for the submittal to be considered “acceptable.” All offers found to be “acceptable” will be allowed to move
forward to the second part of the evaluation. Any offer found to be “unacceptable” will be rejected from
further consideration.
                                                                               SIR DTFAAC-12-R-00002

                                                                                               107 of 128




PART ONE: Factors 1-2 Factor 1 must be found “acceptable” before moving forward to Factor 2. If
Factor 1 is considered “unacceptable,” the submittal will be considered “unacceptable,” and the proposal
will be rejected from further consideration. All offers found “acceptable” for Factor 1 and meeting the
competitive range for Factor 2 will be allowed to move forward to the second part of the evaluation.


CONTRACTOR PROPOSAL INFORMATION: Contractors shall provide 1 original and 2 hard
copies and 1 Electronic Copy of the proposal, PDF’s, excel, etc. are acceptable (disc only). Proposal
PART I,SHALL NOT EXCEED 25 PAGES. PART TWO SHALL NOT EXCEED 45 PAGES,
TIMES NEW ROMAN FONT, 12 PITCH, with the exception of charts and graphs with may be
provided in 10 PITCH. Page limits will be strictly enforced. Any data or material in
excess of the stated page limitations will not be reviewed or considered. Page = 1 side of a
sheet of a standard 8.5 by 11 Inches paper. There are no page limitations for cost and pricing
backup information.

       SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR PART ONE:

       TAB 1: SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:

       The Standard Form (SF) 33, completed by the offeror and duly executed by an official
       authorized to bind the company. Also include under TAB 1 acknowledgement of any and all
       amendments to the SIR in accordance with the instructions on the SF 30. Provide two e-mail
       addresses on a separate sheet of paper for notification of results by letter for Factors 1 and 2.
       This information shall be provided with the other documentation for PART 1-labled E-mail
       Points of Contact. This will not be counted as a part of the 25 page limitation.

       TAB 2: SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:

       SUBMITTAL INFORMATION FOR FACTOR 1. In accordance with the submittal
       requirements of section L, PART ONE, Factor 1.

               FACTOR 2: ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING

               Minimum acceptability is determined when the offeror: a
               simultaneously employed and managed 150 or more full-time                                       Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", First line: 0"
               employees for a period of one year or more on a contract(s) where the annual
               period occurred within the last seven (7) years from the issuance date
               of the SIR; AND

               The offeror shall provide documentation that includes, but is not limited to: a spreadsheet
               identified by contract that contains an annual period of performance that has occurred within
               the last seven (7) years from the issuance date of the SIR, a list of employees, and dates of
                                                                          SIR DTFAAC-12-R-00002

                                                                                         108 of 128

           employment.

PART TWO: FACTORS 3-9

    Only those Contractors who have been determined acceptable for PART ONE, Factors 1 and
    2 will be allowed to participate in PART TWO of this Solicitation.

    TAB 1: The first page (cover sheet) for the proposal, Required attachment information.

    TAB 2: The Standard Form (SF) 33, completed by the offeror and duly executed by an
    official authorized to bind the company. Also include under TAB 2 acknowledgement of any
    and all amendments to the SIR in accordance with the instructions on the SF 30.
    TAB 3: Technical Data in accordance with page limitations as stated.

    CAUTION: Also, the name and address of your firm on the offer MUST
           EXACTLY MATCH the address used for your DUNS number/CCR
           registration.

    TAB 4: The Schedule B-complete Cost/Pricing Schedule, with the Offerors’ proposed
    contract line item costs/prices inserted in the appropriate spaces. this must include all
    of the information required to perform a complete cost analysis (See section H ).
    Current (within the last year) audit report/finding/letter from Offerors’ Federal Government
    cognizant audit agency that the Offerors’ accounting system has been approved and is
    adequate for cost-reimbursement contracts. If the approval of the accounting system is more
    than one year old, the offeror will certify that the accounting system currently being used by
    the offeror is the approved system. No cost- reimbursement contract may be awarded
    unless these requirements are met. One of the limitations is that the contractor's
    accounting system be adequate for determining costs. Therefore, no award will be
    made of this contract to an offeror whose accounting system has not been determined to
    be adequate for cost-reimbursement contracts. This affects all subcontractors (team
    members) if the prime anticipates awarding cost-reimbursement contracts to any of the
    subcontractors. If no cost-reimbursement subcontracts are to be awarded, the offeror
    will so state. If cost-reimbursement subcontracts are to be awarded, provide the
    necessary information from the subcontractors.


    CAUTION: If the Cost/Pricing Schedule contains unit/monthly/etc. prices, they are to be
    extended to the actual amount and not rounded off. Please check your cost/pricing
    submission very carefully for mathematical and clerical errors prior to submission. Also be
    sure the information shown in the pricing schedule is consistent, as applicable, with that
    presented under relevant TABs below.

    TAB 5: Representations, Certifications and other Statements of Bidders/Offerors, (Section
    K) completed by the offeror.
                                                                            SIR DTFAAC-12-R-00002

                                                                                           109 of 128

       TAB 6: Total Compensation Plan for Professional Employees. Submit a total compensation
       plan for professional employees in accordance with AMS and the Statement of Work.


*Note: Any offeror whose proposal does not achieve a rating of Minimum Acceptable or
better in all factors and subfactors may be considered ineligible for award.

Facsimile transmission is not authorized for this Request for Offer.
Offer must be received by the date/time set in Block 9 of Page 1. Early submission is acceptable,
electronic submission is acceptable followed by a hardcopy, signed document addressed to the
Contracting Officer and marked with the Solicitation number clearly on the package as shown:

              MARK PACKAGES:
              Solicitation No. DTFAAC-12-R-00002
              Offer Closing Date: SEE SF 33, PAGE 1 BLOCK 9.
              Offer Closing Time: 2:00 P.M. (1400 hours),
              (CENTRAL TIME)

              MAILING ADDRESS:
              FAA NAS Acquisition Division (AMQ-210)
              ATTN: Robin Shafer, Contracting Officer
              P.O. Box 25082
              Oklahoma City, OK 73125-4931




pecial Instruction Pertaining to Hand Carried Offers:
If your submission will be hand-carried, you must make arrangements at least one day in advance
with the contract specialist (Tel: 405-954-3123). Hand-carried proposals must be delivered to the
following address:

             MIKE MONRONEY AERONAUTICAL CENTER
             FAA (AMQ-210)
             ATTN: Robin Shafer., Contracting Officer
             6500 S. MacArthur Boulevard
             Multi-Purpose Building, Room 312
             Oklahoma City, OK 73169

NOTE: If offer is hand-carried, additional time should be allowed to access the depository
      facility due to heightened security requirements. Please ensure that all courier and
      delivery personnel are aware of these procedures.

       Scored Factors/Subfactors:
                                                               SIR DTFAAC-12-R-00002

                                                                              110 of 128

Factor 3: Purpose: To determine offeror's capability to support the AJW-14 mission
as it relates to the National Airspace System (NAS). Emphasis will be placed on the
Contractor’s experience, especially on contracts for similar services and magnitude,
and the depth and breadth of understanding of this contract’s requirements as
reflected in the proposal.

Engineering Support Capability – 30%

       Subfactor 3(A)                 Engineering Experience – 50%


       The FAA shall evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated
       applicability of their engineering and technical support experience to SOW
       Section 5.2.2 – Specific Areas of Effort.

       Subfactor 3(B)


Factor 4:       Staffing Plan – 30%

                        Purpose: To evaluate offeror's plan for recruitment and
retention for a highly qualified technical workforce to include a technical support
staff as well as determine how the offeror plans to provide support at various
locations under multiple task orders.

       Subfactor 4(A): Personnel Retention

       The offeror shall provide a retention plan that will be used to maintain a
       qualified engineering and support staff over the life of the contract. The plan
       shall include:

               proposed incentives to be provided to employees, including but not
                limited, to items such as awards, profit sharing, health and leave
                benefits, 401K, “Cafeteria” plan, etc.

       The FAA will compare the Offeror’s retention plan and proposed incentives to
       the benefits available to Federal Employees.



   Subfactor 4(B)             Personnel Recruitment – 20%

   The offeror shall provide a detailed staffing plan that describes:

      how they will recruit the personnel required to perform the engineering
                                                                      SIR DTFAAC-12-R-00002

                                                                                      111 of 128

             support services specified in the SOW.
            If the offeror currently has the qualified staff in their organization, they should
             describe how they are going to transition the personnel.
            If qualified personnel are not currently available in the organization, then they
             should provide their organization’s recruitment plan in detail to be evaluated.


         The FAA will evaluate the Offeror’s staffing plan to determine how qualified
         personnel will be recruited and transitioned to perform the services specified in the
  SOW.

      Subfactor 4(C): Work Locations

             The offeror shall provide a detailed plan that describes:

                    how they will provide contractor support at various locations (at least
                     5 different locations) around the United States and its territories under
                     multiple concurrent task orders.

         The FAA will evaluate the Offeror’s plan to provide support at various locations
         (at least 5 different locations) around the United States and its territories under
         multiple concurrent task orders.



      Factor 5: Business Management Capability
      Purpose: The purpose of this factor is to evaluate the qualifications of the offeror’s
      proposed Contract Manager and to review their cost control processes and how those
      processes are/were successfully applied on previous contracts for similar services of
      similar magnitude.
Business Management Capability – 20%

             Subfactor 5(A)                 Qualified Contract Manager – 40%

      FACTOR 5: BUSINESS MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY


             Subfactor 5(A): Qualified Contract Manager

                 To demonstrate the qualification of the Offeror’s Contract Manager.
             Offerors are to provide:

                    A detailed resume for the Contract Manager to be employed on this
                     contract. The resume shall include information describing the
                                                               SIR DTFAAC-12-R-00002

                                                                              112 of 128

               background, education, training, skills, and experience of the proposed
               person as defined in Section 5.1.1.1 of the SOW.
              The Contract Manager’s experience on similar contracts or
               subcontracts and should cite the contract number(s), procuring agency,
               type of services performed, and whether the position was full-time or
               part-time.
              The offeror shall also provide information on the delegation of
               authority granted the on-site Contract Manager as well as lines of
               succession of authority when the Contract Manager is unavailable.

       The FAA will evaluate the qualifications of the Offeror’s proposed Contract
       Manager, the authority granted to that individual, and the Offeror’s delegation
       of authority when the proposed Contract Manager is unavailable.

       Subfactor 5(B)                Cost Control Plan – 60%

       The Offeror shall identify practices presently in place that would allow its
       organization to control and reduce contract costs while increasing
       productivity. List specific examples where cost savings were realized on
       previous contracts.

       The FAA will evaluate the Offeror’s present practices that allow it to control
       and reduce contract costs while increasing productivity as well as the specific
       examples used on previous contracts that resulted in cost savings.

Factor 6: Quality Control – Monitoring Quality of Product and
Service
Purpose: To evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the required quality control
characteristics necessary to perform successfully on this contract for engineering
services on NAS systems and equipment or other Government systems of similar
complexity.

Quality Control – Monitoring Quality of Product and Service

      a discussion of how the offeror plans to review the engineering end products
      the areas they will monitor
      how often the monitoring will be accomplished
      the title of the individuals who will actually perform the internal monitoring
       and to whom these individuals will report
    methodology for identifying and ensuring quality performance of services
    methods for corrective actions when unsatisfactory performance becomes
       evident and the offeror’s actions to prevent reoccurrence.
Factor 7:       Transition Plan – 5%
                                                                        SIR DTFAAC-12-R-00002

                                                                                       113 of 128

       Purpose: To evaluate the offeror’s plan for assuming full responsibility for complete
       contract performance on the start date of the contract’s base year of performance.

       The Offeror shall provide a transition plan that describes:

               the offeror’s plan outlining management’s involvement in the daily operations
                during transition
               their plan for successful transition from the current contractor and describe the
                actions to be taken to ensure effective assumption of total responsibility for
                performance at the end of the transition period
               the proposed organizational structure to be implemented during the transition
                period and explain the extent of management involvement in daily operations
                during the transition period.

       The FAA will evaluate the Offeror’s transition plan for assuming full responsibility
       for complete performance on the start date of the contract’s base year of performance.



Factor 8:       Past Performance – 5%

Purpose: To evaluate the Offeror’s past performance evaluations and all other past
performance information reviewed by the Government (e.g. CPARS, PPIRS, performance
recognition documents, and information obtained for any other source).

The Offeror shall have customers complete Past Performance
Questionnaires (PPQs). Completed PPQs shall be submitted directly to the FAA Contracting
Officer no later than the SIR closing date. The Offeror shall also submit a list of Past
Performance POCs that:

      are knowledgeable of the firm’s past performance
      are willing to be interviewed by the Government using the past performance
       questionnaire
      include the POC’s name, agency, phone number, and e-mail address

Firms are encouraged to describe problems encountered on projects submitted for past
performance and describe the corrective action taken to resolve the issue(s).

Submissions for this factor are limited to a total of 10 pages. A minimum of two PPQs but
no more than five shall be submitted for work efforts over $250,000 that have occurred
within the last five years. Any data or material in excess of the stated page limitations
will not be reviewed or considered.
                                                                              SIR DTFAAC-12-R-00002

                                                                                             114 of 128

       c. Non-scored Factor:

               FACTOR 9: PRICE/COST PROPOSAL (PART TWO Continued)

       This is a non-rated factor, but will be reviewed for price fair and reasonableness for all
       Firm Fixed Price CLINs as well as the G&A, Overhead and proposed fixed fee in section B.
       Contractors must have an Acceptable Accounting System in order to be awarded this
       contract.

       a. Number of copies. Submit the 1 original, 1 copyand 1 CD copy of the cost/price
       proposal.

       b. The original and all copies of the cost/price proposal shall be appropriately labeled as
       such, and shall be comprised of the following (there are no page limitations to the cost/price
       proposal):



L4. PREVENTION OF OTHER FORMS OF HARASSMENT (MAY 2002)                                    CLA.4551
        (a) 'Harassment', as used in this clause, means any verbal, written, graphic, or physical form
of harassment or other misconduct that creates or that may reasonably be expected to create an
intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment based on race, color, religion, gender, sexual
orientation, national origin, age, or disability.
        (b) It is FAA policy that harassment as defined in paragraph (a) above will not be tolerated or
condoned in the FAA workplace. It is also FAA's intent to effectively address inappropriate
conduct.
        (c) The Contractor agrees to support this policy in performing work under this contract, and
that harassment in any form will not be tolerated in the FAA workplace.
        (d) If the Contractor, or a subcontractor of any tier, subcontracts any portion of the work
under this contract, each such subcontract shall include this provision.
        (e) The Contractor shall take whatever corrective action it deems necessary to promptly
address harassment in the FAA workplace, or on an FAA site. The Contractor agrees to immediately
provide the Contracting Officer all relevant information pertaining to any such conduct, and notify
him/her of its planned action.
        (f) The Contracting Officer may require the Contractor to remove employee(s) from the
FAA worksite that the Contracting Officer deems to have engaged in harassment as defined in
paragraph (a) above.
        (g) Any FAA action under subsection (f) above does not relieve the Contractor of its liability
or obligations under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or any other applicable law or regulation.

3.2.2.3-20 Electronic Offers (July 2004)

(a) The offeror (you) may submit responses to this SIR by the following electronic means
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL MUST BE IN THE FORM OF 1 HARD COPY AND 1
ELECTRONIC COPY (CD), NO E-MAIL OR FACSIMILES WILL BE ACCEPTED.
                                                                               SIR DTFAAC-12-R-00002

                                                                                               115 of 128


(b) Electronic offers must refer to this SIR and include, as applicable, the item or sub-items,
quantities, unit prices, time and place of delivery, all representations and other information required
and a statement specifying the extent of your agreement with all the FAA's (we) terms, conditions,
and provisions..

(c) We may decline to consider electronic offers that do not include required information, or that
reject any of the terms, conditions and provisions of the SIR.
(d) We reserve the right to make award solely on the electronic offer. However, if the CO requests,
you must promptly submit the complete original (hard copy) signed proposal.
(e) Send your offer electronically to N/A .
(f) If you chose to send your offer electronically, we will not be responsible for any failure
attributable to transmitting or receiving the offer.

(End of provision)


 3.2.2.3-38 Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data or Other Information (July 2010)

  Offerors (you) may submit certificates of current cost or pricing data (CCCPD) or you may request
    an exception to this requirement. Depending on the option you use, you must submit either the
  CCCPD shown in paragraph (e) of clause 3.2.2.3-39, "Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing
     Data or Information - Modifications" (the clause) or request an exception consistent with the
 information in the clause. Any information in the clause regarding the CCCPD or the exception that
                               is relevant to an offer is incorporated into
this provision.

(End of provision)

3.2.2.3-38 Alternate I Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data or Other Information
(July 2010)

     (c) Submit the cost proposal electronically by –NA-MUST BE SUBMITTED AS DIRECTED
     IN SECTION L-CHART. 1 HARD COPY AND 1 COPY ON CD.

     (End of provision)



3.2.4-1        TYPE OF CONTRACT (APRIL 1996)

The FAA contemplates award of an Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) Cost
Reimbursement Contract with a Fixed Fee and Firm Fixed Price Portion resulting from this
solicitation. Minimum Guarantee for Base Year only, $10,000.00 to be met at time of award by
placement of Task Order 001.
                                                                                 SIR DTFAAC-12-R-00002

                                                                                                116 of 128


3.9.1-3 Protest (October 2011)

AS A CONDITION OF SUBMITTING AN OFFER OR RESPONSE TO THIS SIR (OR OTHER
SOLICITATION, IF APPROPRIATE), THE OFFEROR OR POTENTIAL OFFEROR AGREES
TO BE BOUND BY THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS RELATING TO PROTESTS:

(a) Protests concerning Federal Aviation Administration Screening Information Requests (SIRs) or
awards of contracts shall be resolved through the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) dispute
resolution system at the Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition (ODRA) and shall be governed
by the procedures set forth in 14 C.F.R. Parts 14 and 17, which are hereby incorporated by reference.
Judicial review, where available, will be in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 46110 and shall apply only to
final agency decisions. A protestor may seek review of a final FAA decision only after its
administrative remedies have been exhausted.

(b) Offerors initially should attempt to resolve any issues concerning potential protests with the
Contracting Officer. The Contracting Officer should make reasonable efforts to answer questions
promptly and completely, and, where possible, to resolve concerns or controversies. The protest time
limitations, however, will not be extended by attempts to resolve a potential protest with the
Contracting Officer.

(c) The filing of a protest with the ODRA may be accomplished by mail, overnight delivery, hand
delivery, or by facsimile or if permitted by order of the ODRA, by electronic filing.. A protest is
considered to be filed on the date it is received by the ODRA during normal business hours. The
ODRA's normal business hours are from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm Eastern Time.

(d) Only an interested party may file a protest. An interested party is one whose direct economic
interest has been or would be affected by the award or failure to award an FAA contract. Proposed
subcontractors are not "interested parties" within this definition.

(e) A written protest must be filed with the ODRA within the times set forth below, or the protest
shall be dismissed as untimely:

(1) Protests based upon alleged improprieties in a solicitation or a SIR that are apparent prior to bid
opening or the time set for receipt of initial proposals shall be filed prior to bid opening or the time
set for the receipt of initial proposals.

(2) In procurements where proposals are requested, alleged improprieties that do not exist in the
initial solicitation, but which are subsequently incorporated into the solicitation, must be protested
not later than the next closing time for receipt of proposals following the incorporation.

(3) For protests other than those related to alleged solicitation improprieties, the protest must be filed
on the later of the following two dates:
                                                                               SIR DTFAAC-12-R-00002

                                                                                              117 of 128


(i) Not later than seven (7) business days after the date the protester knew or should have known of
the grounds for the protest; or

(ii) If the protester has requested a post-award debriefing from the FAA Product Team, not later than
five (5) business days after the date on which the Product Team holds that debriefing.

(f) Protests shall be filed at:

(1) Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Ave., S.W.
Room 323
Washington, DC 20591
Telephone: (202) 267-3290
Facsimile: (202) 267-3720; or

(2) Other address as specified in 14 CFR Part 17.

(g) At the same time as filing the protest with the ODRA, the protester shall serve a copy of the
protest on the Contracting Officer and any other official designated in the SIR for receipt of protests
by means reasonably calculated to be received by the Contracting Officer on the same day as it is to
be received by the ODRA. The protest shall include a signed statement from the protester, certifying
to the ODRA the manner of service, date, and time when a copy of the protest was served on the
Contracting Officer and other designated official(s).
(h) Additional information and guidance about the ODRA dispute resolution process for protests can
be found on the ODRA Website at http://www.faa.gov.
(End of provision)


3.1-1 Clauses and Provisions Incorporated by reference (JULY 2011)

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: http://conwrite.faa.gov.
                                              (End of clause)

3.2.2.3-1        FALSE STATEMENTS IN OFFERS (JULY 2004)
3.2.2.3-6        SUBMITTALS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
                 (JULY 2004)
3.2.2.3-7        SUBMITTALS IN U.S. CURRENCY (JULY 2004)
                                                    SIR DTFAAC-12-R-00002

                                                                 118 of 128

3.2.2.3-11   UNNECESSARILY ELABORATE
             SUBMITTALS (JULY 2004)
3.2.2.3-12   AMENDMENTS TO SCREENING INFORMATION REQUESTS
             (JULY 2004)
3.2.2.3-13   SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION/DOCUMENTATION/OFFERS
             (JULY 2004)
3.2.2.3-16   RESTRICTING, DISCLOSING, AND USING
             DATA (JULY2004)
3.2.2.3-17   PREPARING OFFERS (JULY 2004)
3.2.2.3-18   PROSPECTIVE OFFEROR'S REQUESTS FOR EXPLANATIONS
             (MARCH 2009)
3.2.2.3-19   CONTRACT AWARD (JULY 2004)
3.2.2.3-31   Facilities Capital Cost of Money (JULY 2004)
3.13-4       CONTRACTOR IDENTIFICATION NUMBER-
             DATA UNIVERSAL NUMBERING (APRIL
             2006)
                                                                              SIR DTFAAC-12-R-00002

                                                                                              119 of 128


                                      PART VI-SECTION M
                            EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 TECHNICAL EVALUATION RATING:

a. Factors 1-2: Factor 1 must be found “acceptable” before moving forward to Factor 2. If Factor 1 is
considered “unacceptable,” the submittal will be considered “unacceptable,” and the proposal will be
rejected from further consideration. All offers found “acceptable” for Factor 1 and meeting the
competitive range for Factor 2 will be allowed to move forward to the second part of the evaluation.

b. Factors 3-7: Factors/subfactors 3-7 are to be evaluated by each TET member based on each
offeror’s submittal as required by Section L.3 of the SIR/RFO. Each TET member’s initial rating
shall be independent for each subfactor/factor and based upon the rating scale described in
paragraph 10b below. Each TET member’s ratings will be documented utilizing the INDIVIDUAL
FACTOR/SUBFACTOR RATING SHEET (Form B). Ratings assigned shall not be compared to
those of other TET members. At this point, the offeror’s rating is tentative. Each TET member shall
keep a record of rating rationale on the COMMENTS SHEET (Form C) provided and be prepared
to discuss the rationale for ratings assigned. For the final ratings, deviations will be reconciled and
TET consensus ratings determined.


               1.     Excellent (4.0)
                      All aspects of the evaluation factor or subfactor are addressed in a highly
                      competent and logical fashion. Information provided clearly demonstrates
                      that requirements can be met in a manner that far exceeds a satisfactory level.
                      Submittal demonstrated that performance can be provided in an excellent
                      manner. Weaknesses are not evident to any degree.

               2.      HIGHLY ACCEPTABLE(3.0)
                      All aspects of the evaluation factor or subfactor are addressed in a competent
                      and logical fashion. Information clearly demonstrates that requirements can
                      be met in a manner which exceeds a satisfactory level. Submittal
                      demonstrates that performance could be provided at a level above satisfactory
                      requirements. Weaknesses, if evident, are insignificant.

               3.     ACCEPTABLE (2.0)
                      All aspects of the evaluation factor are addressed in a competent and logical
                      fashion. Performance capability is determined to be satisfactory so that all
                      requirements can be met. Any weaknesses will not seriously degrade
                      performance and can be corrected with minor effort or are offset by
                      corresponding strengths.
                                                                             SIR DTFAAC-12-R-00002

                                                                                             120 of 128

              4.      MINIMALLY ACCEPTABLE (1.0)
                      All aspects of the evaluation factors are addressed. Information provided
                      demonstrates that requirements can only be minimally satisfied. There is
                      some risk that satisfactory performance levels can be achieved or sustained.
                      Weaknesses or deficiencies are evident and may require considerable effort to
                      correct.
              5.      Unacceptable (0.0)
                      Fails to address key aspects of the evaluation factor. Information provided
                      indicates that minimum requirements cannot or are very unlikely to be met.
                      Weaknesses or deficiencies are considered significant and will require major
                      correction(s).

M.2 RATING PROCESS: Pursuant to L.3 of the SIR/RFO, the procurement process will involve the
evaluation of several areas. Evaluations involved will permit the FAA to select an offer that represents the
overall best value to the FAA in accordance with the terms and conditions of the SIR. For this acquisition,
there will be two parts to the evaluation process. The first part will consist of Factors 1 and 2. Factor 1
shall be rated as either “acceptable” or “unacceptable” using Form A, Part I Rating Sheet. Factor 2 will be
scored based on the number of employees simultaneously employed and managed by the prime contractor.
The score will be documented on the same Form A, Part I Rating Sheet.

The second part of the evaluation shall consist of scoring individual factors as follows:

       Factors 3-7: Factors/subfactors 3-7 are to be evaluated by each TET member based on each
       offeror’s submittal as required by Section L.3 of the SIR/RFO. Each TET member’s initial
       rating shall be independent for each subfactor/factor and based upon the rating scale
       described in paragraph 10b below. Each TET member’s ratings will be documented
       utilizing the INDIVIDUAL FACTOR/SUBFACTOR RATING SHEET (Form B).
       Ratings assigned shall not be compared to those of other TET members. At this point, the
       offeror’s rating is tentative. Each TET member shall keep a record of rating rationale on the
       COMMENTS SHEET (Form C) provided and be prepared to discuss the rationale for
       ratings assigned. For the final ratings, deviations will be reconciled and TET consensus
       ratings determined.

       Factor 8: After the SIR closing date, the returned past performance questionnaires will be
       opened and the results compiled as follows:

              a. When there are multiple responses for the same offeror and contract, the response
              will be normalized and condensed for each question. In other words, if there are
              different numeric ratings for the same question, those ratings will be averaged
              together utilizing the INDIVIDUAL PAST PERFORMANCE SUBFACTOR
              RATING SHEET PER CONTRACT (Form D). Should there be a response of NA
              for the same question, it will not be considered in calculating the numeric average. If
              all responses are NA, then a composite score of NA will be noted for that question.
              This procedure will allow equitable comparison of contracts with multiple responses
              to contracts with a single response. This process will be used for all contracts under a
                                                                              SIR DTFAAC-12-R-00002

                                                                                              121 of 128

               single offeror and will determine the Average Subfactor Rating per Contract.

       b. For each offeror, the raw subfactor rating will be computed by averaging the contract
       totals (Average Subfactor Rating per Contract) determined in paragraph “a” above. This will
       be accomplished utilizing the INDIVIDUAL PAST PERFORMANCE SUBFACTOR
       RATING SHEET (Form E). Any questions with a composite score of NA will not be
       included in the calculation of the average score for the subfactor. If every question within a
       subfactor has a score of NA, then the offeror will receive a neutral score for the
       subfactor based on the average score of all offerors that did have responses for that subfactor.
       The raw subfactor ratings will be recorded on the INDIVIDUAL FACTOR/SUBFACTOR
       RATING SHEET (Form B) Any deviations will be reconciled and a consensus team rating
       determined. The completed INDIVIDUAL FACTOR/SUBFACTOR RATING SHEET
       (Form B) will be submitted to the TET Lead who will compute the subfactor weighted scores
       utilizing the TET LEAD SUBFACTOR RATING SHEET (Form F). The TET Lead
       will then transfer the total scores for each factor onto the TET LEAD FACTOR RATING
       SHEET (Form G) and assign the factor weights to determine the total factor scores. The
       factor scores will then be totaled to determine the offeror’s overall technical score. The
       offeror’s final score will be presented to the IPT on the SUMMARY RATING SHEET
       (Form H).

       c. Factor 9: Non-Rated Factor, reviewed for price fair and reasonableness for Firm
       Fixed Price CLINs, G&A and fixed fee overhead, in schedule B by the Contracting
       Officer and/or Cost & Price Analyst.

M.3 ROLES: BEST VALUE SOURCE SELECTION PROCEDURES: Evaluations will proceed
under the direction of the TET Lead and as outlined in this plan. The TET will evaluate and rate all Factors
noted in Section 9. Nothing in this plan shall be construed to limit the Contracting Officer’s overall
responsibility for the conduct of this procurement in accordance with the principles of AMS.

Each TET member shall evaluate and rate each proposal independently. Because of the sensitive nature of
information provided in each offeror’s proposal, TET members shall guard the proposals to insure that
information contained in the proposals is not disclosed to anyone outside the IPT. Discussions between and
among TET members and IPT members may occur for clarification purposes and general understanding.
These discussions are expected and encouraged. TET members may be requested to participate in
discussions.

In proceeding with the evaluation, it is important to remember that the FAA’s Acquisition Management
System (AMS) provides for flexibility in the evaluation process. The TET, just like the IPT, is expected to
apply sound judgment in determining appropriate variations and adaptations necessary for individual
situations, provided that these do not constitute a departure from the basic concept and intent of the
evaluation plan and the SIR.
                                                                              SIR DTFAAC-12-R-00002

                                                                                            122 of 128

M4. PART ONE-EVALUATION CRITERIA: FACTORS 1 AND 2 ONLY!

FACTOR1: ENGINEERING CONTRACTS : Held previous/current engineering contract(s)
on NAS systems and equipment or other Government agency systems and equipment of
similar complexity.

       Factor 2 will be scored based on the number of employees simultaneously employed and
       managed by the prime contractor using the scale below.

       Minimal Acceptability Factors/Subfactors – Rated as Acceptable or Unacceptable:

       Minimum acceptability is demonstrated when the offeror provides documentation that verifies the
       company has/had a contract(s) within the last seven (7) years (from the issuance date of the SIR) to
       provide engineering and technical support services on NAS systems and equipment or other
       Government agency systems and equipment of similar complexity.

       The Prime Contractor has simultaneously employed and managed:

                                  Number of Employees                 Score

               100% of 150 (150 or more employees)                     5
               80% - 99% of the 150 (120 – 149 employees)              4
               60% - 79% of the 150 (90 – 119 employees)               3
               40% - 59% of the 150 (60 – 89 employees)                2
               20% - 39% of the 150 (30 – 59 employees)                1
               Below 20% of the 150 (0 – 29 employees)                 0


M5. PART TWO: FACTORS 3-9: Applies only to those Contractors who are successful in
PART ONE, Factors 1 and 2. Do not submit this information unless requested to do so by the
Contracting Officer provided to the Company POC and Alternate via E-mail. (E-mail will be
provided to the POC(s) as presented in Contractor’s first submittal for Factor 1, Tab. 1.)

The second part of the evaluation shall consist of scoring individual factors as follows:

Scored Factors:

              Factor 3:      Engineering Support Capability – 30%

                      Subfactor (A)         Engineering Experience – 50%

                             The FAA shall evaluate the Offerors’ demonstrated applicability of
                             their engineering and technical support experience to SOW Section
                             5.2.2 – Specific Areas of Effort.
                                                              SIR DTFAAC-12-R-00002

                                                                              123 of 128

       Subfactor (B)          Ability to Understand and
                              Support the AJW-14 Mission – 50%

               The FAA shall evaluate the Offerors’ level of understanding of the
               various types of engineering and technical support services and
               processes required in the SOW, Section 5.2.2 – Specific Areas of
               Effort.

Factor 4:      Staffing Plan – 30%

       Subfactor (A)          Personnel Retention – 80%

               The FAA will compare the Offerors’ retention plan and proposed
               incentives to the benefits available to Federal Employees.

       Subfactor (B)          Personnel Recruitment – 20%

               The FAA will evaluate the Offerors’ staffing plan to determine how
               qualified personnel will be recruited and transitioned to perform
               the services specified in the SOW.



Factor 5:      Business Management Capability – 20%

       Subfactor (A)          Qualified Contract Manager – 40%

The FAA will evaluate the qualifications of the Offerors’ proposed Contract
Manager, the authority granted to that individual and the Offerors’ delegation of
authority when the proposed Contract Manager is unavailable.

       Subfactor (B)          Cost Control Plan – 60%

The FAA will evaluate the Offerors’ present practices that allow it to control and
reduce contract costs while increasing productivity as well as the specific examples
used on previous contracts that resulted in cost savings.

Factor 6:      Quality Control – Monitoring Quality of Product and
               Service - 10%

The FAA will evaluate the Offerors’ Quality Control Plan (QCP) to determine the
Offerors’ understanding of the required quality control characteristics necessary to
perform successfully on this contract for engineering services on NAS systems and
equipment or other Government systems of similar complexity.
                                                                             SIR DTFAAC-12-R-00002

                                                                                            124 of 128

              Factor 7:      Transition Plan – 5%

              The FAA will evaluate the Offerors’ transition plan for assuming full
              responsibility for complete performance on the start date of the contract’s base year
              of performance.

              Factor 8:      Past Performance – 5%

              The FAA will evaluate the Offerors’ past performance information in relation to the
              following subfactors:

              Subfactor 8(A): Schedule - Completion of tasks and work efforts 25%
              Subfactor 8(B): Quality of Product/Service 25%
              Subfactor 8(C): Business Relations - Cooperativeness and teamwork
                               with the Government and customer satisfaction 25%
              Subfactor 8(D): Cost Control - A respect to stewardship of
                               Government funds and ability to control costs 25%

              The FAA will also determine if the type of work noted on each PPQ is identical to,
              similar to, or related to the type of work noted in SOW Section 5.2.2 – Specific Areas
              of Effort. Also the last question on the PPQ asking, “if you had a choice, would you
              use this company again” will be used to help the FAA in their determination of risk
              assessment.
              The FAA will not be held responsible for the Contractor’s customers who refuse to
              respond or provide the information. If the Contracting Officer fails to receive any
              completed forms for an offeror, the FAA will attempt to follow up with the customers
              once in order to retrieve the information. After this attempt, any Past Performance
              Questionnaire not submitted and received by the date/time as requested by the FAA
              will NOT be considered and will result in a Past Performance rating of neutral for that
              firm. This will be taken into consideration during the Government’s overall risk
              assessment during the best value analysis process.

M.6. PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS: After receiving the past performance questionnaires
where ratings will have been completed in accordance with the scale below, the TET members will
determine the raw subfactor ratings as noted in paragraph 3 above. Any significant deviations will be
reconciled and a team consensus rating determined.

              1.      Rating of 4.0:
                      Performance met/meets contractual requirements and exceeded/exceeds many to
                      the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element being
                      assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective
                      actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.
                                                                            SIR DTFAAC-12-R-00002

                                                                                            125 of 128

              2.     Rating of 3.0:
                     Performance met/meets contractual requirements and
                     exceeded/exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual
                     performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with some minor
                     problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

              3.     Rating of 2.0:
                     Performance met/meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance
                     of the area being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective
                     actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

              4.     Rating of 1.0:
                     Performance did/does not meet some contractual requirements. The
                     contractual performance of the element being assessed reflects a serious
                     problem for which the contractor has not yet identified or did not identify
                     corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally
                     effective or were not fully implemented.

              5.     Rating of 0.0:
                     Performance did/does not meet most contractual requirements
                     and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of
                     the element being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the
                     contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

              6.     Rating of NA:
                     Past Performance questionnaire could not be obtained for an offeror, or if a
                     response for the element was unable to be provided.

      Note: Any offeror whose proposal does not achieve a rating of Satisfactory or better in
      all factors and subfactors may be considered ineligible for award.


c. Non-scored Factor:

Factor 9:     Price/Cost Proposal – this factor will not be rated by the TET.
              The Offerors’ price/cost proposal will be evaluated by AMQ’s pricing team.

   1. Cost or Price Proposal Evaluation. The cost proposal submitted will be reviewed by the
      CO and Cost Price Analyst, but will not be point scored. The proposed prices for the
      Firm Fixed Price CLINs in schedule B will be reviewed for reasonableness and affordability;
      whether it is realistic for the work to be performed; reflects a clear understanding of the
      requirements; and is consistent with the offerors’ technical proposal. The Government will
      evaluate each offerors’ overall estimated cost of doing business over the life of the contract,
      reasonableness and realism using the information provided and other than cost or pricing data
      submitted as part of the proposal, as follows:
                                                                              SIR DTFAAC-12-R-00002

                                                                                             126 of 128


               (1) Price and Cost Proposals Contractual Requirements. Unless otherwise
                   indicated, all items listed in Section L for each tab of the cost proposal must be
                   present. Review of these items will be done using the cost analysis and price
                   analysis method, with the exception of the pre-award survey and the subcontractor
                   information, which will be necessary as stated in this SIR.

               (2) Overall Cost of Doing Business over the Life of the Contract,
                  Reasonableness and Realism.

M.7 CLARIFICATIONS OF AMBIGUITIES: As the initial evaluation is conducted, offers will be
reviewed for the purpose of identifying any ambiguities that need clarification before actual initial detailed
evaluation begins. Statements in various parts of the proposal, or a description of statement(s) which cannot
be understood or are seen by the TET as susceptible to two or more reasonable interpretations shall be
identified so that any clarifying information can be obtained promptly from offerors. TET members must
submit the clarification requests in writing to the TET Lead for forwarding to the IPT. If possible, and to
save time, initial detailed evaluations should proceed without responses to ambiguities. Additional
clarifications may be made throughout the process, if required. Offeror's responses to the request for
clarifications will be forwarded to the TET as soon as received, and should be considered in the initial
evaluation ratings.


M.8 INITIAL DETAILED EVALUATIONS: This evaluation is for the purpose of rating each
proposal, and identifying weaknesses and deficiencies to the IPT for possible identification to the
offerors should discussions be necessary. A strength is an element of an offeror's proposal that
brings added value beyond that of minimum requirement set out in the SIR/RFO. A weakness is an
element of an offeror's proposal which, while meeting the minimum requirements of the SIR/RFO, is
presented in such a manner as to afford the offeror a less than desirable competitive position. A
deficiency is a descriptive statement(s), or lack thereof, that fails to meet or does not allow the
evaluators to determine, whether the minimum requirements of the SIR/RFO are met in the
submission. In addition, significant strengths, or additional comments, should be identified to the
IPT in the TET report. If communications are required, the IPT may elect to identify offeror
weaknesses and deficiencies noted by the TET.



M.9 COMMUNICATIONS WITH OFFERORS: Communications with a single offeror or more
than one offeror is permitted in accordance with AMS. Communications with an offeror or offerors may be
desired where there is a need to seek clarification or to address weaknesses and deficiencies reported to the
IPT and/or the Contracting Officer. Communications will be conducted in such a manner that avoids
disclosure of the relative strengths and weaknesses of competing offerors, technical information or ideas, or
cost/price data from any other offeror's submission. TET members may be requested to participate in
communications. The TET Lead shall be the spokesperson for the TET. All communications are to be
controlled by the Contracting Officer. It is emphasized that communications are conducted at the sole
discretion of the FAA and are intended solely to facilitate the FAA’s evaluation of the offers. The FAA
                                                                              SIR DTFAAC-12-R-00002

                                                                                              127 of 128

reserves the right to make award based on the initial submittal of offers in response to the SIR and without
conducting any communications.

M.10. SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION: .

M.11 FINAL EVALUATION: The extent of communications may create a situation
whereby revised proposal(s) becomes necessary. Upon receipt of any revised submission(s), the TET will
conduct final evaluations of each revised submission. All supplemental information or revised submissions
shall be analyzed taking into account any impact on other aspects of the submission. Revised ratings will be
accomplished, where appropriate, using the same designated evaluation procedures. All revised ratings
shall be supported by written comments, rationale, and/or notes. The COMMENTS SHEET(s) (Form C)
shall be retained by the TET Lead. Results will be summarized and included in the TET's written report to
the IPT, through the TET Lead. The report shall, for each offeror, provide the evaluation results as
determined by the TET’s application of the evaluation factors for award. The IPT may request additional
information and/or participation of the TET to assist the IPT in making its determination of best value.

M.12 RISK ASSESSMENT:

Using the descriptions below, each proposal will be assessed a risk rating
based upon perceived risks to the FAA associated with the Offerors’ proposal
to include, but not be limited to, the areas of technical competence and
understanding of the work requirements.

HIGH RISK: Great potential exists for serious work performance problems including, but not
limited to, work schedule disruptions, quality problems, and substantial increase in contract costs
incurred by the Government – low probability of success.

MODERATE RISK: Some potential exists for work performance problems including, but not
limited to, work schedule disruptions, quality problems, and/or a commensurate increase in contract
costs incurred by the Government – marginal probability of success.

LOW RISK: Minimal or no potential exists for work performance problems, including, but not
limited to, work schedule disruptions, quality problems, and/or a limited increase in contract costs
incurred by the Government – good probability of success.

M.13 AWARD CONSIDERATIONS:
RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF COST and PRICE TO OTHER FACTORS:

Award will be made to that offeror whose proposal contains the combination of
those criteria offering the best overall value to the FAA. This will be
determined by comparing differences in the value of non-cost technical and
management features with differences in cost to the FAA.

In making this comparison, all evaluation factors other than cost or price,
when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. The
                                                                               SIR DTFAAC-12-R-00002

                                                                                              128 of 128

Government is more concerned with obtaining superior technical or management
features than with making an award at the lowest overall cost to the
Government. However, the Government will not make an award at a significantly
higher overall cost to the Government to achieve slightly superior technical
or management features.


The TET Lead will present the risk assessments to theSource Selection Official for
consideration when making the final decision

3.1-1 Clauses and Provisions Incorporated by reference (JULY 2011)

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: http://conwrite.faa.gov.

3.2.4-31 Evaluation of Options (APRIL 1996)
3.3.1-30 Progress Payments Not Included (NOVEMBER 1997)

END OF SIR

								
To top