Docstoc

Contract Management Proposal Writing

Document Sample
Contract Management Proposal Writing Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                                                                  DTFAWA-08-R-00012


SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD .......................................................1
   M.1        AMS 3.1-1 Clause and Provisions Incorporated by Reference (September 2002) ............. 1
   M.2        Basis for Award .................................................................................................................. 1
              M.2.1 Award Selection ..................................................................................................... 1
              M.2.2 Best Value Process ................................................................................................. 1
              M.2.3 Eligibility for Award .............................................................................................. 2
              M.2.4 Evaluation Factors and Order of Importance.......................................................... 3
              M.2.5 Assess Risk throughout Evaluation Process ........................................................... 4
              M.2.6 Capability Statement Evaluation Factors................................................................ 4
              M.2.7 Past Performance Evaluation Factors ..................................................................... 5
              M.2.8 Technical/Management Evaluation Factors ........................................................... 6
              M.2.9 Cost/Price Factor .................................................................................................... 8
   M.3        Evaluation Process .............................................................................................................. 8
              M.3.1 Compliance Review................................................................................................ 8
              M.3.2 Eligibility Review ................................................................................................... 8
              M.3.3 Offeror Communications ........................................................................................ 8
              M.3.4 Capability Statement Evaluation Process ............................................................... 8
              M.3.5 Past Performance Evaluation Process..................................................................... 9
              M.3.6 Technical/Management Evaluation Process ......................................................... 10
              M.3.7 Cost/Price Proposal Evaluation Process ............................................................... 11
              M.3.8 Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting Plan
              Evaluation Process ............................................................................................................ 12
                                                                                       DTFAWA-08-R-00012



SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD
M.1      AMS 3.1-1 Clause and Provisions Incorporated by Reference (September 2002)

This Screening Information Request (SIR) or contract, as applicable, incorporates by reference one or
more 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; offerors may also obtain the
full text via the Internet at: http://fast.faa.gov (on this web page, select “Contract Writing/Clauses,” then
“Search and View Clauses,” then “Download All Clauses”).


M.2      Basis for Award

M.2.1 Award Selection

This acquisition is being conducted in accordance with the FAA Acquisition Management System (AMS)
(revised January 2007). Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is judged to represent the best
value to the FAA. The best value decision will be based on the evaluation of each offeror’s proposal in
accordance with the criteria set forth in Section M. Best value describes the solution that is the most
advantageous to the FAA based on the evaluation of price and other factors specified. It does not require
that an award be made to either the offeror submitting the highest rated technical/management solution or
to the offeror submitting the lowest cost/price. Therefore, the total evaluated lowest price proposal may
not be the judged to represent the best value to the FAA.

The FAA intends to select one offeror for contract award. However, the FAA reserves the right not to
award a contract depending on the quality of the proposals submitted and/or the availability of funds.

M.2.2 Best Value Process

In determining best value, the FAA will complete the following activities:

    1. The FAA will determine if an offeror is responsive by assessing if the offeror has met the
       requirements in Section L including the eligibility requirements listed in Section L.2.7.

    2. The FAA will evaluate the Capability Statement and Past Performance information from each
       responsive offeror. The FAA will assign separate ratings for the Capability Statement and Past
       Performance as described in this document.

    3. The FAA will perform a comparative analysis of the Capability Statement and Past Performance
       evaluations.

    4.    The FAA will perform a tradeoff analysis of the Capability Statement and Past Performance
         results to arrive at the recommendation to the SSO of those offerors most likely to receive an
         award.

    5. The SSO will make the down select decision.

    6. Those offerors remaining after the down select decision will be invited to submit
       Technical/Management and Cost/Price proposals. The FAA will publicly announce those
       offerors making it through the down select decision in order to encourage teaming and small


ATCOTS                                            SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD - 1
                                                                                      DTFAWA-08-R-00012


        business participation.

    7. The FAA will evaluate the Technical/Management proposal for each offeror remaining in the
       competition after the down-select decision. The FAA will assign a rating to each
       Technical/Management sub-factor and the overall Technical and Management factors as
       described herein. The FAA reserves the right to use information obtained in the Capability
       Statement and Past Performance evaluations as needed in the Technical/Management evaluation.

    8. The FAA will evaluate the Cost/Price proposal of each offeror remaining in the competition after
       the down-select decision.

    9. Using the results of the Technical/Management, and Cost/Price proposal evaluations, the FAA
       will perform a comparative analysis of all strengths, weaknesses, risks, and cost.

    10. The FAA will perform a tradeoff analysis of the Technical/Management and Cost/Price results to
        arrive at the best value recommendation for contract award to the Source Selection Official
        (SSO).

    11. The SSO will make the best value decision.


M.2.3 Eligibility Requirements

Proposals must be submitted in accordance with Section L and must conform to all the terms and
conditions of the SIR. Offerors may be found ineligible for award if their proposals fail to conform to all
terms and conditions of the SIR.

M.2.3.1 Eligibility for Down-select:

Offerors must provide the following items for consideration during the down-select process:
       The Ability to cover payroll and other operating and administrative expenses of an estimated
          $20 M to accommodate FAA “in arrears” payments for work performed for periods up to 90
          days.
       A Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) approved accounting system.

Offerors who do not meet this eligibility requirement will be eliminated from the competition.

M.2.3.2 Eligibility for Award:

After the down select decision only those offerors invited to submit Proposal Volumes III - VIII can
participate in the remainder of the ATCOTS competition.

For any offeror remaining in the competition after a down-select decision, a rating of “red,” as defined in
this document, in any technical or management sub-factor may result in the exclusion of the offeror from
further consideration. However, a rating of “red” does not necessarily mean that the proposal is
unacceptable, so exclusion is not mandatory.

To be eligible for award an offeror must be determined responsible by the Contracting Officer. To be
determined responsible, the Offeror must satisfy the standards listed in AMS Section 3.2.2.2. The
adequacy of the Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting Plan (SBSDB) is a
factor in the Contracting Officer’s determination of the prospective Contractor responsibility. For any


ATCOTS                                           SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD - 2
                                                                                      DTFAWA-08-R-00012


offeror remaining in the competition after a down-select decision, an offeror must receive and
"acceptable" rating for its Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting Plan.

To be eligible for award, the offeror must not have taken exception to any requirements except for those
identified in Section L.8.5.

Omission or a vague response to the requirements of this solicitation may render a proposal incomplete,
as it relates to the requirements of the solicitation and therefore may cause the proposal to be found
ineligible for award.

If at any point 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 Contracting Officer will notify in writing any offeror eliminated from further consideration. After
contract award, the FAA will offer a debriefing to any offerors eliminated from any part of the
competition.

M.2.4 Evaluation Factors and Order of Importance

The FAA will evaluate each offeror’s Capability Statement and Past Performance information and use the
resulting evaluation as a basis for a down select decision. The results of the Capability Statement
evaluation are more important than the Past Performance evaluation. As the differences in the Capability
Statement between offerors become smaller, the Past Performance becomes more important.

The Capability Statement will be evaluated for the following factors. The Capability Statement Factors
are of equal importance.

        Capability Statement Factor 1:   FAA Knowledge
        Capability Statement Factor 2:   Training Delivery
        Capability Statement Factor 3:   Training Development
        Capability Statement Factor 4:   Management
        Capability Statement Factor 5:   Change Management

The FAA will evaluate Past Performance based on the following factors. The Past Performance Factors
are of equal importance.

        Past Performance Factor 1: Technical Capability
        Past Performance Factor 2: Cost Control
        Past Performance Factor 3: Timeliness of Performance
        Past Performance Factor 4: Program Management/Business Relations
        Past Performance Factor 5: Customer Satisfaction

The FAA will evaluate the Technical/Management proposal and Cost/Price proposal of those offerors
remaining in the competition after the down-select decision. The Technical and Management results are
more important than the Cost/Price results. As the differences in the Technical and Management results
between offerors become smaller, the Cost/Price results become more important.




ATCOTS                                            SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD - 3
                                                                                       DTFAWA-08-R-00012


The Technical/Management proposal will be evaluated for the following factors and sub-factors:

Factor 1: Technical
        Sub-Factor 1: Training Delivery
        Sub-Factor 2: Training Development and Transformation
        Sub-Factor 3: FAA Knowledge


Factor 2: Management
        Sub-Factor 1: Staffing
        Sub-Factor 2: Transition
        Sub-Factor 3: Program Management

Technical and Management factors are of equal importance. Within each factor, the sub-factors are listed
in decreasing order of importance.

Neither the Pilot nor the Transition Plan will receive a separate rating. The Transition Plan will be
evaluated in the Transition sub-factor. The FAA will evaluate the Pilot where appropriate across the
Technical/Management factors and sub-factors.

The Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for the realism, reasonableness, and risk.

M.2.5 Assess Risk throughout Evaluation Process

The FAA will not assign a separate risk rating. However, the FAA will assess risk throughout the
evaluation.

Risks identified within an offeror’s proposal will be analyzed as to their potential impacts on the
ATCOTS program. This includes risks resulting from inconsistencies and discrepancies between various
aspects of an offeror’s proposal and risks that pertain to unsubstantiated representations made in any
aspect of an offeror’s proposal.

Risks and risk mitigation strategies identified in an offeror’s proposal will be considered when evaluating
proposed approaches. Failure to sufficiently identify and address risks may lead the FAA to conclude that
an offeror has an inadequate understanding of the requirements, which may be grounds for elimination
from the competition. A particular offeror’s ability to demonstrate an understanding of the risks may be
noted among strengths and/or weaknesses.

M.2.6 Capability Statement Evaluation Factors

This section describes the evaluation factors that the FAA will use to evaluate the offeror’s capability
statement. The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the offeror’s Capability Statement demonstrates its
capability and relevant experience with the requirements described in the PWS.

M.2.6.1     Capability Statement Factor 1: FAA Knowledge

FAA Knowledge - The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the offeror demonstrates its knowledge of
the FAA, the National Airspace System, and Air Traffic Control.

M.2.6.2     Capability Statement Factor 2: Training Delivery



ATCOTS                                           SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD - 4
                                                                                      DTFAWA-08-R-00012


Training Delivery - The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the offeror demonstrates its capability and
experience with delivering technical training to an adult workforce.

The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the offeror demonstrates its capability and experience with
delivering technical training of similar size and complexity to the training services described in the PWS.


M.2.6.3     Capability Statement Factor 3: Training Development

Training Development - The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the offeror demonstrates its
capability and experience in developing training using industry standard development practices.

The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the offeror demonstrates its capability and experience with
developing training of similar size and complexity to the training described in the PWS.

The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the offeror demonstrates its capability and experience with
implementing incremental and wide scale changes into training curriculum that is of similar complexity to
those services described in this SIR.

M.2.6.4     Capability Statement Factor 4: Management

Management – The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the offeror demonstrates its capability and
experience with managing a program with geographically dispersed personnel.

The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the offeror demonstrates its capability and experience with
managing a program of similar in size and complexity to the ATCOTS program.

The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the offerors demonstrates its capability and experience in
effectively creating and using metrics for monitoring performance.

The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the offeror demonstrates its capability and experience with
managing a nationwide transition of similar size and complexity.

M.2.6.5     Capability Statement Factor 5: Change Management

Change Management – The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the offeror demonstrates its capability
and experience with managing change within an organization with a mission similar to the size and
complexity of the FAA.

The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the offeror demonstrates its capability and experience in
implementing both incremental and wide scale changes into training curriculums of similar complexity of
those described in this SIR.

M.2.7 Past Performance Evaluation Factors

The FAA will evaluate the past performance information based on the information provided by the
offeror and the information received from the offeror’s points of contact on the each referenced past
performance citation. An offeror’s lack of past performance on similar types of contracts may result in an
offeror receiving a lower rating.




ATCOTS                                           SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD - 5
                                                                                          DTFAWA-08-R-00012


M.2.7.1      Past Performance Factor 1: Technical Performance

Technical Performance – The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the offeror demonstrates its past
performance for technical performance in the areas of knowledge of customer business, training delivery,
training development, management, change management, and transition.


M.2.7.2      Past Performance Factor 2: Cost Control

Cost Control – The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the offeror demonstrates its past performance
for cost control in the areas of forecasting target costs, target costs relationships to actual costs, billing,
and cost efficiency.

M.2.7.3      Past Performance Factor 3: Timeliness of Performance

Timeliness of Performance – The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the offeror demonstrate its past
performance for timeliness of performance in the areas of meeting interim milestones, fulfilling contract
requirements, completing contract on time, and meeting delivery schedules.

M.2.7.4      Past Performance Factor 4: Program Management/Business Relations

Program Management/Business Relations – The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the offeror
demonstrates its past performance for program management/business relations in the areas of program
management, open communication, responsiveness to contract requirements, problem notification,
flexibility, proactive behavior, and effective subcontractor management.

M.2.8 Technical/Management Evaluation Factors

This section lists the technical and management factors and sub-factors that the FAA will use to evaluate
the Technical/Management proposals. The FAA will evaluate the degree to which offerors address each
factor and the sub-factors within each factor to ensure they demonstrate an understanding of SIR
requirements.

M.2.8.1      Factor 1: Technical

The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the offeror possesses the technical capability for training
services of similar size and complexity.

          M.2.8.1.1    Sub Factor 1: Training Delivery

           a) The offeror’s proposal demonstrates the capability to continually provide quality
              instruction consistently to FAA Air Traffic Control Specialists (ATCS) and developmentals
              at the Academy and at the field facilities
           b) The offeror’s approach to training, developing, and mentoring instructors yields high
              quality instructors.




ATCOTS                                              SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD - 6
                                                                                         DTFAWA-08-R-00012


          M.2.8.1.2    Sub Factor 2: Training Development and Transformation

           a) The offeror’s knowledge and capability to assist the FAA in updating training to comply
              with FAA Order 3120.4.
           b) The offeror’s approach to assisting the FAA in updating training due to changing
              technologies, policies, and methodologies results in effective and efficient training
              development services.
           c) The offeror’s capability to provide a beneficial solution to the Pilot which will yield
              measurable improvements to the current training process.
           d) The offeror’s process improvement methodology results in useful changes to training and
              processes.
           e) The offeror demonstrates the knowledge and expertise in industry standard training
              concepts such as:
                     Instructional Systems Design
                     Knowledge management
                     Training content management and re-use
                     Development, integration, and use of learning support systems
                     Trainee tracking and evaluation systems
                     Adult learning theories
                     Instructional concepts for a multi-generational workforce
                     Skill building

          M.2.8.1.3    Sub Factor 3: FAA Knowledge

           a) The offeror demonstrates knowledge and understanding of FAA air traffic control policies,
              procedures, and regulations (e.g. FAA Order 7110.65) and their effect on training
              development and delivery
           b) The offeror demonstrates knowledge and understanding of NAS systems and operations
              and their effect on training development and delivery
           c) The offeror demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the FAA air traffic control
              training strategy, methodology, processes, and content.

M.2.8.2      Factor 2: Management

The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the offeror’s approach to staffing, transition, and program
management will assist in the delivery of effective and efficient training services.

          M.2.8.2.1    Sub Factor 1: Staffing

           a) The offeror’s approach, for the entire life of the contract, to recruiting, hiring, and retention
              enables it to meet the SIR requirements at all requested facilities.
           b) The offeror demonstrates the capability to meet staffing qualifications.
           c) The offeror’s approach to recruiting, hiring, and retention enables it to be responsive to
              FAA changes in staffing requirements.

          M.2.8.2.2    Sub Factor 2: Transition

           a) The offeror proposes an effective transition plan that meets SIR requirements and
              minimizes any impact to the current training operations.




ATCOTS                                             SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD - 7
                                                                                      DTFAWA-08-R-00012


        M.2.8.2.3     Sub Factor 3: Program Management

          a) The offeror’s management approach, knowledge, and expertise enables it to effectively
             manage a geographically dispersed contract with a major contingent of personnel at the
             FAA Academy and personnel located at hundreds of facilities throughout the US.
          b) The offeror’s performance management approach provides for processes, procedures,
             systems, tools, and resources to effectively manage the performance of its services.
          c) The offeror’s proposed metrics in the Performance Requirements Summary are thorough
             and effective for the management of the services described in the PWS.
          d) The offeror’s change management approach enables the offeror to assist the FAA in
             transforming its training approach to meet the future needs of the NAS.

M.2.9 Cost/Price Factor

For the purpose of evaluation, total evaluated cost will be maximum amount for which the government
would be liable assuming that all CLINS in section B are exercised

M.3     Evaluation Process

The following sections describe the process by which the FAA will evaluate proposals. The FAA intends
to select one offeror for this contract award. The FAA will exercise judgment in evaluating all
information collected.

M.3.1 Compliance Review

Each volume of the offeror’s proposal will first be reviewed to determine whether it follows the
requirements of Section L and includes all of the required information. Omission of information may be
considered grounds for eliminating a proposal from further consideration.

M.3.2 Eligibility Review

The FAA will review each offeror’s eligibility information to determine if it meets the requirements listed
in Section L.2.7. If the FAA determines that an offeror does not meet these requirements, the offeror will
not be considered further in the evaluation. The FAA will notify the offeror in writing of this decision.

M.3.3 Offeror Communications

The FAA may communicate with offerors orally or in writing during the course of the evaluation. The
FAA reserves the right to conduct communications with one, some, all, or none of the offerors.
Communications with one or more offerors do not necessitate communication with all offerors.

Offerors are advised that the FAA reserves the right to make an award based on initial proposals received,
without communications, discussions or negotiations. Therefore, offerors are instructed to submit
proposals with the most favorable terms possible regarding cost, technical, and other factors.

Offerors should not assume that they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss, or
revise their proposals. Any information obtained during communications and/or the pre-award survey
may be used to clarify, substantiate, or validate information provided in an offeror’s proposal.

M.3.4 Capability Statement Evaluation Process



ATCOTS                                           SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD - 8
                                                                                      DTFAWA-08-R-00012


For each capability statement, the FAA will:

(a) Review, analyze, and consider all information received in the capability statement,

(b) Identify the strengths and weaknesses for each capability statement factor,

(c) Rate each capability statement factor by assessing strengths and weaknesses noted for each using
    Table M-1 below.

(d) Rate the overall Capability Statement based on the results of the factor evaluations.

When determining a rating the FAA will review all strengths and weaknesses and then determine which
have the greatest impact on the capability statement factor. These strengths and weaknesses will be
considered the most influential by the FAA in the determination of the rating. When determining the
rating the FAA will consider the significance of the impact of a strength and weakness. Ratings will not
be determined based on the quantity of strengths and weaknesses.


                         Table M-1: Capability Statement Rating Definitions

Rating                                                       Definition
Blue               The offeror has demonstrated an outstanding capability and experience level. It is
                   expected that this rating will be used when it clearly exceeds what is described as
                   "Green"
Green              The offeror has substantially demonstrated its capability and experience with
                   identified strengths. Few, if any, weaknesses exist and are outweighed by strengths.
                   There is a high probability the offeror will meet contract requirements.
White              The offeror has demonstrated its capability and experience with few identified
                   weakness. Strengths, if identified do not outweigh the identified weaknesses. The
                   offeror is likely to meet the contract requirements.
Yellow             The offeror has not fully demonstrated its capability and experience. Weaknesses are
                   many and/or significant. Any strengths identified are outweighed by weaknesses. It is
                   likely that Agency resources would be required to ensure the offeror meets contract
                   requirements.
Red                The offeror has not demonstrated its capability and experience. Weaknesses are many
                   and/or significant. Few if any strengths are identified. Weaknesses greatly outweigh
                   any identified strengths. It is likely that significant Agency resources would be
                   required to ensure the offeror meets contract requirements.


M.3.5 Past Performance Evaluation Process

Each offeror’s past performance will be assessed using the offeror-provided information and information
received in the response to the Contract Performance Customer Survey (Attachment L-1). The FAA will
rate each Past Performance factor based on this information. An overall rating for Past Performance will
be determined from the results of the factor evaluations. While the FAA may elect to consider
information obtained from other sources, the FAA is under no obligation to do so. The performance
history will be reviewed and verified for relevant experience to the requirements to assess risk. The
assessment will be determined as follows:




ATCOTS                                           SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD - 9
                                                                                       DTFAWA-08-R-00012




                           Table M-2: Past Performance Rating Definitions

Rating                                                        Definition
High Confidence            The offeror has demonstrated an outstanding performance level. It is
                          expected that this rating will be used in those rare circumstances where
                          performance clearly exceeded the performance levels described as "Good"
Good Confidence            The offeror has demonstrated performance that exceeded contract
                          requirements and/or expectations with negligible Government resources to
                          ensure achievement of contract requirements.
Medium Confidence          The offeror has demonstrated performance that met contract requirements
                          with little Government resources.
Fair Confidence           The offeror’s performance required moderate Government resources to ensure
                          achievement of contract requirements.
Marginal Confidence       The offeror’s performance required significant Government resources to
                          ensure achievement of contract requirements.


M.3.6 Technical/Management Evaluation Process

For each Technical/Management proposal, the FAA will:

(a) Review, analyze, and consider all information received in the Technical/Management proposals in
    response to this SIR, which will include proposal content and any information received from written
    or oral communications, if issued.

(b) Consider, at its discretion, any information provided in Capability Statement and Past Performance
    volumes. For those offerors remaining after the down select decision who choose to change a
    teammate(s), the FAA reserves the right to update any findings found in the evaluation of the
    Capability Statement and Past Performance evaluation.

(c) Identify the strengths, weaknesses, and/or risks for each sub-factor in the Technical and Management
    factors.

(d) Rate each sub-factor by assessing strengths and weaknesses noted for each using Table M-3 below.

(e) Rate the factor based on the results of the sub-factor evaluations.

(f) Prepare final evaluations for the technical and management factors based on all information received
    in response to this SIR including any information obtained from written or oral communications.

When determining a rating the FAA will review all strengths and weaknesses and then determine which
have the greatest impact on the overall sub-factor. These strengths and weaknesses will be considered the
most influential by the FAA in the determination of an overall sub-factor rating.

In determining a sub-factor and factor rating, the FAA will consider the significance of the impact of a
strength and weakness. Ratings will not be determined based on the quantity of strengths, weaknesses, or
risks.

In determining ratings the FAA will consider the extent the offeror’s responses are:



ATCOTS                                            SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD - 10
                                                                                      DTFAWA-08-R-00012




         Viable: Capable of working or functioning in a manner that meets the requirements of the SIR
          within the specified environment.

         Substantiated: Competent, documented evidence that supports or otherwise verifies proposal
          claims, approaches, and contents.

         Internally Consistent: All individual elements of the proposal are mutually supportive and do not
          contradict each other in any way.

         Realistic: Practical; having a high probability of accuracy.
                          Table M-3: Technical/Management Rating Definitions

Rating                                                    Definition
Blue             The offeror’s response is comprehensive and demonstrates a thorough understanding of
                 the full range of requirements and work effort. The offeror has convincingly
                 demonstrated that its approach when implemented would highly benefit the FAA through
                 innovative, effective, and efficient performance under the contract. The impact of
                 identified strengths greatly outweighs the impact of any identified weaknesses.
Green            The offeror’s response to the requirement is fully acceptable and responds to the full
                 range of requirements and work effort. The offeror has demonstrated that its approach
                 when implemented would benefit the FAA. The offeror’s response exceeds the
                 requirements for the White rating but does not meet the standards for the Blue rating.
                 The impact of identified strengths outweighs the impact of any identified weaknesses.
White            The offeror’s response adequately addresses requirements of the requirement. The
                 offeror’s response does not provide exceptional benefit or detriment to the FAA. The
                 impact of any strengths is equivalent to or somewhat outweighs the impact of any
                 weaknesses.
Yellow           The offeror addresses the evaluation factor requirements; however, information provided
                 does not clearly demonstrate capability, competency, or a logical plan to meet the PWS
                 requirements. The offeror’s response presents doubt that performance can be achieved.
                 Weaknesses are noted that could significantly degrade performance requirements. The
                 impact of weaknesses outweighs the impact of any strengths.
Red              The offeror does not fully address the evaluation factor requirements. The offeror’s
                 response is vague and/or is illogical. The response fails to adequately identify the
                 competency or capability to meet the PWS requirements. The impact of weaknesses
                 greatly outweighs the impact of any strengths.


M.3.7 Cost/Price Proposal Evaluation Process

Each Offeror’s cost proposal will be evaluated for realism, reasonableness and risk. Unreasonable costs
or inconsistencies between the Technical/Management and Cost proposals revealed may be assessed as
proposal risk under any comparative or Qualitative and Quantitative analysis. In its evaluation, the
Government may use commercial published data, same or similar DOD contracts, Government estimates,
industry standards, DCAA audit information, or other information as deemed appropriate by the
Government. In addition, the Government may make adjustments (both upward and downward) to the
total evaluated cost that the Government deems appropriate. Adjustments may include costs required to
accomplish the Offeror’s proposed approach (e.g., Government-Furnished Equipment/Government-
Furnished Information required by the Offeror to implement its approach) with the exception of those



ATCOTS                                            SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD - 11
                                                                                      DTFAWA-08-R-00012


costs to the Government that are common for all Offerors. The Government will also evaluate overall
contract cost including the basic requirements and options.

M.3.8 Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting Plan Evaluation Process

The FAA will evaluate the Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting plan as
either Acceptable or Unacceptable and will not be numerically scored. The plan will be assigned an
adjectival rating as follows:

        (a) Acceptable – Proposed goals meet or exceed SIR-established subcontracting goals.
        (b) Unacceptable - Offeror fails to propose goals, or proposed goals do not meet SIR-established
            subcontracting goals.

The FAA will evaluate whether the offeror’s Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business
Subcontracting Plan fully addresses each of the eleven items listed in FAAAMS clause 3.6.1-4..

The FAA will evaluate whether the offeror’s Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business
Subcontracting plan demonstrates that at least forty-five (45) percent of the planned subcontract dollar
value is allocated to small businesses including:

    1) At least ten (10) percent of the total planned subcontract dollar value allocated to small
       disadvantaged businesses.
    2) At least five (5) percent of the planned subcontract dollar value allocated to small women-owned
       businesses.
    3) At least one (3) percent of the total planned subcontract dollar value allocated to service disabled
       veterans owned businesses.

The FAA will evaluate whether the offeror’s Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business
Subcontracting plan demonstrates the goals above apply over the full life of the contract, including the
base period and each exercised option period.

This factor is not applicable to small businesses; therefore, all small and small disadvantaged businesses
will receive an acceptable rating for this factor.




ATCOTS                                           SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD - 12

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: Contract Management Proposal Writing document sample