Attch_6_-__Evaluation_Criteria.pdf

U.S. Department of the Interior Solicitation No. 140D0418R0001

Source Selection Information – FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Addendum to Federal Acquisition Regulation Clause 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items (Oct 2014)

October 5February 14, 20187

Table of Contents 1 Evaluation Plan

1.1 Basis of Award

1.1.1 Proposal Volumes and Evaluation Factors

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

1.3 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers

2 Evaluation Methodology for Factors 1 through 4

2.1 Evaluation Methodology for Factors 1 and 2

3 Evaluation Factors

3.1 Non-Price Factors

3.1.1 Factor 1: Management/Technical Solution and Transition Plan

3.1.2 Factor 2: Personnel Requirements

3.1.2.1 Evaluation Methodology for Factor 1 and 2

3.1.3 Factor 3: Small Business Subcontracting Plan

3.1.4 Factor 4: Past Performance

3.1.4.1 Past Performance

3.1.4.2 Unknown Past Performance

3.1.4.3 Past Performance Problems

3.1.4.4 Past Performance Evaluation Methodology

Sources of Past Performance Information for evaluation are as follows:

3.2 Factor 5: Price Factor

4 Responsibility Determination

5 Competitive Range

6 Discussions

Solicitation No. 140D0418R0001 – FBMS Support Services ID/IQ

Evaluation Criteria

1 Evaluation Plan

1.1 Basis of Award

The tradeoff process will be used to obtain the best value for the Government to fulfill this requirement.

The Government will select the best value offer, based upon an integrated assessment of both price and non-price factors to include Technical Qualifications, Past Performance, and Price. The evaluation will include an assessment of all stated terms, conditions, and all other information required in this solicitation, and a determination that the successful Offeror is deemed responsible. The Government will award a single Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) Contract and initial Task Orders to the Offeror proposing the combination of factors which offers the best value to the Government.

Factor 1 and Factor 2 are equally important. and Collectively, Factors 1 and 2 are significantly more important than Factors 3, 4 and 5 are collectively. Factors 3 and 4 are equally important. Factor 5 is less important than either Factors 1, 2, 3 andor and 4. If one or more Offerors have equal ratings for factors 1 through 4 (non-price factors), then factor 5 (price factor) will become more important in the best value determination for award. Award will be made on a Best Value Trade-off basis and the source selection will be conducted in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.3. The award will be based on the best overall proposal based on a determination that the proposal is the most beneficial to the Government with the appropriate consideration given to the evaluation factors. As a basis for award, trade-offs between price and non-price factors are permitted. Therefore, the Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest proposed price. Each evaluation factor will be evaluated based on its strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, deficiencies, and risks.

Factor 1: Management/Technical Solution and Transition Plan Factor 2: Personnel Requirements Factor 3: Small Business Subcontracting Plan Factor 4: Past Performance Factor 5: Price

It is the Government’s intention to award without discussions. Offerors are encouraged to present their best technical proposal and prices in their initial proposal submission. However, in accordance with FAR Part 15.306 (Exchanges with Offerors After Receipt of Proposals), should discussions become necessary, the Government reserves the right to hold them. If this occurs, a competitive range will be determined and Offerors notified. The competitive range may be limited for purposes of efficiency IAW FAR Part

15.306 (c)(2) (Competitive Range).

The evaluation will consider the proposals based on the following:

• FBMS Support Services ID/IQ Performance Work Statement (PWS)

• Business Integration Office (BIO) Support Services Task Order (PWS)

• National Park Service (NPS) FBMS Support Services Task Order (PWS)

• Acquisition Services Directorate (AQD) FBMS Support Services Task Order (PWS)

1.1.1 Proposal Volumes and Evaluation Factors

The proposals will be evaluated utilizing information provided in the proposal volumes listed below and against the following evaluation factors:

Proposal Volumes:

Volume 1: Factor 1 - Management/Technical Solution and Transition Plan Volume 2: Factor 2 - Personnel Requirements Volume 3: Factor 3 - Small Business Subcontracting Plan Volume 4: Factor 4 - Past Performance Volume 5: Factor 5 - Price

The evaluation will consider the proposal that encompasses the Base ID/IQ and the three initial Task Orders. However, as specified below, certain parts of the proposal will not be evaluated against every non-price evaluation factor at the task order level. All parts of the proposal will be evaluated at the Base ID/IQ level.

• ID/IQ Base Contract: The Base ID/IQ will be evaluated utilizing information provided in the following proposal volumes and evaluation factors:

Proposal Volume/Evaluation Factor:

Volume 1: Factor 1 - Management/Technical Solution and Transition Plan Volume 2: Factor 2 - Personnel Requirements Volume 3: Factor 3 - Small Business Subcontracting Plan Volume 4: Factor 4 - Past Performance Volume 5: Factor 5 - Price

• BIO Support Services Task Order: The BIO Task Order will be evaluated utilizing information provided in the following proposal volumes and evaluation factors:

Proposal Volume/Evaluation Factor:

Volume 1: Factor 1 – Management/Technical Solution and Transition Plan Volume 2: Factor 2 – Personnel Requirements Volume 5: Factor 5 –Price

• NPS Support Services Task Order: The NPS Task Order will be evaluated utilizing information provided in the following proposal volumes and evaluation factors:

Volume 2: Factor 2 - Personnel Requirements

• AQD Support Services Task Order: The AQD Support Task Order will be evaluated utilizing information provided in the following proposal volumes and evaluation factors:

Volume 2: Factor 2 - Personnel Requirements

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

It is the Government’s intention to award a single Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) Contract as a result of this solicitation. The Government also intends to award initial Task Orders for the Business Integration Office (BIO), Acquisition Services Directorate (AQD), and National Park Service (NPS) as a result of this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to not award a Contract or Task Orders as a result of this solicitation, depending upon the quality of the proposal(s) submitted or other unforeseen reasons.

1.3 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers

Unrealistically low or unreasonably high proposed prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition. Such a proposal may be viewed as indicative of lack of understanding of the Government’s desired objective.

The Government may reject any offeror that is determined to be unrealistic of requirement commitments, including terms and conditions, and evaluation criteria or is unrealistically low or unreasonably high in price, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the requirement.

The Government reserves the right, but is not required, to conduct a price realism analysis to determine whether the proposed labor rates are realistic for the work to be performed and to allow for recruitment and maintenance of a skilled workforce. If the government decides to conduct a price realism analysis, additional information from the Quoter(s) may be necessary.”

In addition, Offerors are cautioned against submitting a materially unbalanced offer. Offers that are determined to be materially unbalanced can be rejected. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices or separately priced line items. An offer is materially/mathematically unbalanced if it is based on prices that are significantly less than the price for some contract tasks and significantly overstated in relation to price for others. An offer is materially/mathematically unbalanced if:

• There is a reasonable doubt that the offer would result in the lowest overall price to the Government, even though it is the lowest evaluated offer; or

• The offer is so grossly unbalanced that its acceptance could result in the Government initially overpaying for a portion of the work performed.

2 Evaluation Methodology for Factors 1 through 4

2.1 Evaluation Methodology for Factors 1 and 2

The Management/Technical Solution and Transition Plan and Personnel Requirements evaluation provides an assessment of the Offeror’s capability to meet or exceed the Government’s requirements. The evaluation will focus on the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, deficiencies, and risks of the Offeror’s proposal. Overall, the assessment criteria include adequacy of approach; feasibility of approach; completeness; and understanding of the requirement. The following will be evaluated for an overall assessment of the Management/Technical Solution and Transition Plan and Personnel Requirements.

3 Evaluation Factors

Proposals will be evaluated based upon the factors listed below:

3.1 Non-Price Factors

3.1.1 Factor 1: Management/Technical Solution and Transition Plan

An evaluation of the Management/Technical Solution will consist of a determination and analysis of strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, deficiencies, and risks in regards to the Offeror’s understanding of the technical work to be accomplished, its proposed organization structure to support that work, and its proposed approach to managing the work to be performed and the personnel working under the resulting contract.

An evaluation of the Transition Plan will consist of a determination and analysis of strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, deficiencies, and risks in regards to the Offeror’s planned approach to successfully transition the required work from the current contractor.

Note: The Offeror’s Management approach and Transition Plan(s) shall address both the Base ID/IQ and Task Order levels.

3.1.2 Factor 2: Personnel Requirements

An evaluation of Personnel Requirements will consist of a determination and analysis of strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, deficiencies, and risks in regards to the Offeror’s proposed labor categories and labor mix to successfully perform the requirements of the contract. An evaluation will also be made in terms of the experience, qualifications, and availability of the Offeror’s proposed personnel.

The Government will ensure that the Offeror’s proposal contains the appropriate skill mix via evaluation of the resumes. and that all Key and Senior personnel are available for the base ID/IQ and all initial Task Orders PWSs by ensuring that commitment letters are provided with resumes.

Note: The Offerors proposal shall address the Personnel Requirements at the Base ID/IQ and Task Order level.

3.1.2.1 Evaluation Methodology for Factor 1 and 2

Factor 1 Management/Technical Solutions and Transition Plan and Factor 2 Personnel Requirements will be rated based on the definitions set forth in the technical rating table.

The following definitions will be used in the evaluation:

Strength: A proposed method or technique in the proposal that exceeds the solicitation requirement.

Weakness: A flaw in the Quote that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weaknesses (Includes non-price and price weaknesses)

A flaw that appreciably increases the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. It is a significant weakness whenever the proposal has a flaw important enough to cause a factor to be rated marginal or poor. This includes even relatively minor weaknesses when their cumulative impact is significant. For example, if an approach affects several areas of the evaluation, but makes no individual factor rating marginal or poor, the contracting officer should include it in discussions if the cumulative impact is significant enough to impact the overall rating.

Deficiencies A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. A deficiency exists whenever the offeror specifically states that a requirement cannot or will not be met, offers an approach that clearly does not meet a requirement, or submits a proposal that contains a combination of significant weaknesses.

FAR 15.001.

Uncertainties: Includes suspected errors, significant omissions, and uncertainties necessary to understand what is being offered. However, perfect knowledge is not necessary and could be harmful if the Government tends to spend too much of its time and effort chasing information that has no real bearing on the evaluation. If the Government needs information to draw a conclusion, the contracting officer should request it.

Risk As it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance the consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offerors proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased price or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The technical rating table focuses on the proposals strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, deficiencies, and risks.

TECHNICAL RATING TABLE

Adjectival

Rating Description Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an excellent understanding of the requirements and an approach that significantly exceeds performance or capability standards.

Proposal has multiple strengths that will significantly benefit the Government.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal demonstrates a good understanding of the requirements and an approach that exceeds performance or capability standards and contains one or more strengths that will benefit the Government. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal demonstrates an understanding of the requirements and an approach that meets performance or capability standards. Proposal presents an acceptable solution with little or no strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate.

Marginal Proposal demonstrates a shallow understanding of the requirements and an approach that only marginally meets performance or capability standards necessary for minimal but acceptable contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal fails to meet requirements and one or more deficiencies exist for which correction would require a major revision or redirection of the proposal. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high or unacceptable. A contract cannot be awarded with this proposal.

3.1.3 Factor 3: Small Business Subcontracting Plan

Small Business Subcontract Plans will be rated as "Acceptable" or "Unacceptable" based on the whether the plan adequately addressed the 15 elements required in a subcontracting plan as outlined in FAR 19.407 and clause 52.219-9.

Rating Criteria Definition Acceptable Small Business Subcontracting Plan addressed the 15 elements required in a subcontracting plan as outlined in FAR 19.704 and clause 52.219-9.

Unacceptable Small Business Subcontracting Plan does not address the 15 elements required in a subcontracting plan as outlined in FAR 19.704 and clause 52.219-9.

3.1.4 Factor 4: Past Performance

3.1.4.1 Past Performance

Past performance will be evaluated as follows:

• Offeror provides references for the prime Offeror and subcontractor/teaming arrangement and joint ventures that are similar in size, scope and complexity to the PWS requirements.

• Past Performance must be recent/relevant and provide evidence of quality, timeliness, cost control, positive business relations, and effective and efficient management.

• Other past performance information obtained through other sources (e.g., PPIRS, etc.)

demonstrates consistently positively rated services provided on other similar contracts.

3.1.4.2 Unknown Past Performance

In the case of Offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance. (See FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).) In this case, the Offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.” A neutral rating of one Offeror can be treated as being lower rated than another Offeror who has overcome past and/or present performance issues.

3.1.4.3 Past Performance Problems

Where relevant performance records indicate performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may evaluate more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness. The Offeror is required to clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified.

Submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators that clearly support that an Offeror has overcome past problems is required.

3.1.4.4 Past Performance Evaluation Methodology

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to ascertain, based off the Offeror’s performance history, the probability of successfully performing the requirements of the solicitation.

The Government will consider each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying services that are similar to the requirements of this solicitation.

There are three (3) aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy

(including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

• Recency. The first is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance.

Recency is generally expressed as a time-period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information.

• Relevance. Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming.

With respect to relevancy, 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.

Past Performance Relevancy Rating

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.

• Quality of Products or Services. The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance (see FAR 15.304(c)(2)). The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. Requirements for considering history of small business utilization are outlined at FAR 15.304(c)(3)(ii). The Past Performance Evaluation Team will evaluate all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. A separate quality assessment rating is not required;

rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

Sources of Past Performance Information for evaluation are as follows:

• Past performance information may be provided by the Offeror, as solicited;

• Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials.

In the case of Offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance. (See FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).) In this case, the Offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.”

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating

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.

3.2 Factor 5: Price Factor

The Price Volume will be evaluated separately from the Management/Technical Solution and Transition Plan Volume, Personnel Requirements Volume, Small Business Subcontracting Plan Volume, and Past Performance Volume. Pricing should NOT be present or referenced in other volume, chapter, section, or document of an Offerors proposal other than the Pricing Volume.

The Offeror is expected to propose competitive, reasonable, and realistic prices for the ID/IQ contract labor rates and for the three (3) initial Task Orders in accordance with all guidance provided in FAR 52.212-1 Instruction to Offerors and this Solicitation in its entirety. An evaluation of the Price Volume will be made to determine if it is both fair and reasonable for the work to be performed, reflects a clear understanding of the requirements, and is consistent with the Management/Technical Solution and Transition Plan Volume and the Personnel Requirements Volume. In evaluating Price, the ID/IQ labor rates and the individual price for the three (3) initial Task Orders will be evaluated. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic award. Offerors shall not submit a price for the potential six month extension of services period. The Government may choose to exercise the Option to Extend Services (FAR Clause 52.217-8) at the end of any performance period by utilizing the rates of that performance period. A best value with tradeoff will be used when it may be in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror.

4 Responsibility Determination

No award shall be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility in accordance with FAR Part 9.1. A prospective Offeror must affirmatively demonstrate its responsibility, including, the responsibility of its proposed subcontractors at any tier.

5 Competitive Range

In accordance with FAR 15.306(c), after evaluating all proposals, if it has been determined to be in the best interest of the Government to establish a competitive range, the Contracting Officer reserves the right to limit the competitive range for purposes of efficiency. The Contracting Officer 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 technical proposals (10 U.S.C.

2305(b)(4) and 41 U.S.C. 253b(d)). The competitive range will be comprised of the most highly rated proposals, based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria. The Contracting Officer will promptly notify Offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range.

6 Discussions

FAR 15.306 allow the Contracting Officer to engage in discussions with Offerors within the competitive range. If held, discussions will be tailored to each Offeror’s proposal. Discussions will identify evaluated deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and any adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Be advised, the procedures under PPIRS provide contractors the opportunity to respond to past performance information in the system.

The Contracting Officer may also discuss other aspects of the Offeror’s proposal that could be altered or explained to enhance the proposal’s potential for award. However, the contracting officer is not required to discuss every area where the proposal could be improved.

Discussions shall not reveal another Offeror’s price, reveal another Offeror’s technical solution (technical leveling), or reveal the names of individuals providing Past Performance information.

3.1.4.4 Past Performance Evaluation Methodology