04-Section M (v3).pdf

SSP Attachment 04 Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M-1 BASIS FOR AWARD

M-1.1 This competitive acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, Department of Defense (DOD) Source Selection Procedures, Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS) 5315.3, and DAFFARS Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the offerors who give the Air Force the greatest confidence that each will best meet or exceed our requirements affordably and in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors described in this provision. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective;

therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Award will be made to the responsible offerors whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, and provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph M-2 below.

The Government intends to award a target of eight (8) contracts to small businesses as a result of this solicitation. The Government may award more or less contracts than the intended target.

M-1.2 Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. Communications conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors shall not constitute discussions.

The Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision. Offeror’s may be restricted to a short suspense (i.e., less than 24 hours) in responding to the Contracting Officer during any discussion period.

M-1.3 Rejection of Unreasonable Offers: The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unreasonable in terms of program commitments, or contract terms and conditions, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

M-1.4 Contractor Responsibility: In accordance with FAR 9.1, the Contracting Officer shall award contracts only to responsible vendors. No purchase or award shall be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them. The Contracting Officer shall require acceptable evidence of the prospective contractor’s current sound financial status, as well as the ability to obtain required resources if the need arises. Regarding resources, the contractor must be prepared to present acceptable evidence of subcontracts, commitments or explicit arrangements that will be in existence at the time of contract award, to rent, purchase or otherwise acquire the needed facilities, equipment, services, materials, other resources or personnel. Consideration of a prime contractor’s compliance with limitations on subcontracting shall be considered for the time period covered by the contract base period or quantities, plus option periods or quantities, if such options are considered when evaluating offers for award. Pursuant to FAR 9.104-4, the Contracting Officer reserves the right to request adequate evidence of responsibility on the part of any prospective subcontractor(s). In the absence of information clearly indicating that the prospective contractor is responsible, the Contracting Officer shall make a determination of non-responsibility.

M-2 FACTORS AND RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

M-2.1 Factors: A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s proposal shall be performed. The Government’s evaluation shall be based on the following factors:

Factor 1: Past Performance Factor 2: Price (Seed Project)

M-2.2 Relative Importance: Among the evaluation factors considered in the tradeoff decision, past performance is significantly more important than price.

M-3 EVALUATION PROCESS

The evaluation process shall begin with a compliance review to verify all proposals conform to the administrative requirements set forth in Section L, Paragraph L-2. All conforming proposals shall then be ranked by proposed price for the seed project from lowest to highest. For efficiency purposes the Government will evaluate proposals until eight (8) proposals are deemed to have a substantial confidence rating. At that point the Government will stop evaluating higher priced proposals. If eight (8) proposals are not deemed to have a substantial confidence rating, the Government will utilize the subjective tradeoff methodology to select the best overall proposals, based upon an integrated assessment of past performance and price. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against the source selection criteria in M-4. The Government will then conduct a price fair and reasonable assessment. The government reserves the right to award fewer than or more than the stated target number of contract awards.

M-4 PROPOSAL EVALUATION

M-4.1 Factor 1 – Past Performance Evaluation: The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the recency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information). Past performance references and data of either party to a joint venture or teaming arrangement will be considered to apply equally to the joint venture or teaming arrangement.

M-4.1.1 Recency: To be determined recent, offerors must submit four (4) project references that have been awarded, completed, or are ongoing within three (3) years from the date of this solicitation (SF1442 Block 3). Submissions that do not meet the recency requirement shall be rated “Neutral”. Confidence ratings of Substantial and Satisfactory will be rated more favorably than a Neutral confidence rating.

M-4.1.2 Relevance: To be determined relevant, an effort must have an award value of no less than $100,000 and no more than $2,000,000 and be similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity of the work outlined in the MAPC IDIQ SOW. Past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. The relevance ratings in Table 3 below shall be used when assessing offeror’s efforts.

Table 3 – Past Performance Relevance Ratings Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

M-4.1.3 Quality: Source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. The four (4) projects submitted for past performance evaluation in combination with offeror-provided references, CPARS, web searches, or any other reasonable available information will be sufficient. Quality includes the general trends in contractor performance and source of information.

M-4.1.4 Performance Confidence Assessment: Efforts that are determined recent and relevant will then receive a confidence assessment rating in accordance with Table 4 below. In the case of offerors for which there is no or limited information on past contract, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance. In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and a performance confidence rating of “Neutral” will be assigned. Confidence ratings of Substantial and Satisfactory confidence will be rated more favorably than a Neutral confidence rating.

Table 4 – Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings Adjectival Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

M-4.2 Factor Price Evaluation: The contracting officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the contracting officer will review this determination and if, in the contracting officer's opinion, adequate price competition exists no additional data will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition the contracting officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists; offerors may be required to submit cost data to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine the reasonableness and affordability of the price. The government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures found in FAR Part 15.404-1 to ensure a fair and reasonable price to include realistic pricing.