P00001 SECTION M - EVALUATION CRITERIA.pdf

SECTION M – EVALUATION FOR AWARD

M-1. INTRODUCTION

This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the offeror's capabilities and proposals for the ballistic glass contract. The Government will compare each offeror's capabilities and proposal elements against predetermined measures of merit related to the Government's requirement defined herein.

Award will be made in accordance with the basic contract ordering procedures, the procedures specified in the solicitation and on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors. This acquisition will use the lowest price technically acceptable source selection process found in FAR 15.101-2. A contract may be awarded to the contractor who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the solicitation instructions) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest complete and reasonable price.

The Government will organize the proposals based on the lowest price and will evaluate the technical approach of the lowest priced Offeror first. If the lowest priced Offeror is technically acceptable, that offer represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process ceases at this point. Award shall be made to that Offeror without further consideration to any other offers.

The Government intends to make award based on the initial proposal submissions without conducting interchanges. Therefore, each offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to hold interchanges if, during the evaluation, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Interchanges are fluid interaction(s) between the

Contracting Officer (CO) and the contractors that may address any aspect of the proposal and may or may not be documented in real time. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct interchanges using

Interchange Notices (IN). Offeror responses to INs will be considered in making the order selection decision.

M-2 EVALUTION SELECTION BASIS PHASE I

The following instructions describe the evaluation factors, and their importance, how they will be evaluated.

The Contracting Officer (CO) will notify offerors in writing when their proposals are excluded from the competitive range or otherwise eliminated from the competition. That notice shall state the basis for the determination and that a proposal revision will not be considered. The Government seeks to select an offeror who gives the FBI the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements.

M-3. EVALUATION FACTORS AND METHODOLOGY

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Prime contractor with an office within a 50-Mile radius of Vienna, VA 22180.

Factor 2: Technical Approach/Schedule

Factor 3: Price

FACTOR 1: Prime Contractor with an office within a 50-mile radius of Vienna, VA 22180

The technical factor will be evaluated using a Pass/Fail rating. The prime contractor MUST have an office within a 50-Mile Radius Vienna, VA.

FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL-

L.4.1 The term “technical,” as used herein, refers to the non-price elements listed below. The Technical

Approach, Key Personnel, and Schedule will be individually rated in accordance with Table 1 Technical

Evaluation Ratings bellow. Offerors will be evaluated on the overall technical solution proposed and the level of detail comprehensiveness provided in the proposal. Proposals will be rated as "Acceptable" or

"Unacceptable" regarding their ability to meet the governments technical requirements. Refer to Table 1 for a description of the ratings. All elements must be acceptable for a Proposal to be considered for award.

• Element 1: Technical Approach – Technical Approach: The offeror shall provide a conceptual work plan describing their understanding of the scope and proposed technical approach to satisfy the performance goals identified in the Scope of Work (SOW) and supporting design attachments.

• Element 2: Schedule – A desired period of performance (POP) has been identified within the SOW.

The contractor shall confirm that the work identified within the SOW can be accomplished within the identified POP and provide a schedule outlining major milestones and critical path on how said work will be accomplished. Long lead items can be shown outside of the identified critical path and will not be evaluated for Element 2: Schedule.

If the proposed schedule is not within the desired PoP the schedule will not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Table 1. Technical Evaluation Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable

Proposal clearly meets the requirements of the solicitation, SOW, Division 1, and Drawings.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not clearly meet the requirements of the solicitation, SOW, Division 1, and Drawings.

FACTOR 3: PRICE:

Price proposals should support the proposed technical approach and will be evaluated for (1) Total

Evaluated Price (TEP), (2) completeness, and (3) reasonableness. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete or unreasonable will not be considered for award.

The Total Evaluated Price will be calculated as the sum of the contractor’s proposed price for the sum of

CLIN 0001 Ballistic Glass Installation.

Completeness. The proposal will be reviewed to determine the extent to which all the price elements have been addressed. The contractor’s proposed price and other information will be evaluated to ensure continuity and traceability of prices to the technical volume and between the initial proposal and any revisions thereto. The review will determine the adequacy of the contractor’s proposal in addressing and fulfilling the requirements.

Reasonableness. For a price to be fair and reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The Government will determine prices fair and reasonable through the use of one or more of the price analysis techniques at FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

M.3 Competitive Range

The Government reserves the right to limit, for purposes of efficiency, the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals (10 U.S.C.2305 (b)(4) and 41 U.S.C. 3703). If the contracting officer decides that an offeror's proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal shall be eliminated from consideration for award and written notice of the decision shall be provided to the unsuccessful offeror in accordance with FAR 15.503.

M.4 Discussions

The Government intends to evaluate offers without discussions (except clarifications, as described in FAR

15.306(a)). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and 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 proposals. If discussions are necessary due to perceived weaknesses or other issues, which must be addressed before award, they will be conducted with only those offerors determined to be within the competitive range. Discussions may be conducted either orally or in writing. The scope and extent of discussions are a matter of contracting officer judgment. Offerors may be restricted to a short turnaround (less than 24 hours) in responding to the contracting officer.

M.5 Final Proposal Revisions

If discussions are conducted, final proposal revisions will be required in determining the award of the contract resulting from this RFP. However, the Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions or opportunity for proposal revisions, in which case, final proposal revisions will not be required. Offerors are advised that unsupported final proposal revisions may be penalized in the overall proposal evaluation, and an otherwise acceptable proposal could be placed in jeopardy.

M.6 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including 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.7 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any weakness or proposal inadequacy. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the

Government. If an aspect of an offeror’s proposal not meeting the Government’s requirements is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.