Attachment 8 - Section M MODAT.docx

19AQMM20R0073 3

Attachment 8: Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

SECTION M: Evaluation Factors for Award

BASIS FOR AWARD - BEST PRICE/TECHNICAL TRADEOFF

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s proposal received before the Request for Proposal (RFP) closing date/time established in this solicitation and use the results in the source selection decision. The source selection process will determine the overall merits of each proposal in terms of its potential to satisfy the needs of the Government.

The Government will use the cost-technical tradeoff source selection process, as defined in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-1 (Tradeoff Process). Award will be made to the Offeror that is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.1; whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements; and whose proposal is determined to provide the best overall value to the Government. The proposal offering the best value is the one that is most advantageous to the Government, when price and other factors are considered. The Government may select for award the offeror whose price is not necessarily the lowest, but whose technical proposal is more advantageous to the Government and warrants the additional cost. When determining best value, the Technical factor is significantly more important than Past Performance. Technical and Past Performance together are significantly more important than Price. The importance of price will increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to the other non-price factors (Technical and Past Performance).

EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST). The Government reserves the right to reject an offer if one of the following conditions exists:

· Offeror fails to submit any of the required proposal documents specified in Section L.

· Offeror submits a cost/price proposal that cannot be adequately explained or substantiated.

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is feasible and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements successfully within the required schedule.

2. Descriptive terms used to describe different elements of an offeror’s proposal are defined below. These definitions are drawn from FAR Part 15.

Significant Strength: A significant outstanding or exceptional aspect of Offeror’s proposal that exceeds the specified performance requirements in a way to benefit the Government, and either will be included in the contract or is inherent in the Offeror’s process and greatly increases the likelihood of successful performance.

Strength: An aspect of the proposal that increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

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

Significant Weakness: A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency: 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.

Risk: The potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration for risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD:

I. Volume I: Factor 1 – Technical Proposal Evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal shall address each Technical Subfactor as it applies requirements set forth in this solicitation and Statement of Work (SOW). The Technical Subfactors are as follows:

a. Subfactor 1: Key Personnel and Staffing Plan

b. Subfactor 2: Technical Approach

c. Subfactor 3: Mobilization Plan

The Technical Subfactor 1 is of greatest importance and will be rated significantly higher than Subfactor 2. Subfactor 2 will be rated higher than Subfactor 3. When combined, the non-price factors (Technical and Past Performance) are significantly more important than price. As proposals become more equal in technical merits, price may become significantly more important.

Note: To receive consideration for award, an overall rating of no less than “ACCEPTABLE” must be achieved for Factor 1 – Technical.

II. Volume II: Factor 2– Price Proposal

Price is not scored; rather, the principal basis for evaluating price as a factor for award under this solicitation will be an evaluation of the reasonableness of the offeror’s respective “total overall price”, (highlighted in green) located at the bottom of Attachment 6, Pricing Spreadsheet.

The principle manner for evaluating price reasonableness will be price competition. However, the Government will use one or more of the proposal analysis techniques stipulated in FAR 15.404 to conduct the evaluation.

Other Direct Costs will be billed as Cost Type CLINs. The Government does not commit to order or payment of these quantities and dollar amounts, respectively. These cost-reimbursable CLINs do not create a cost-type contract; therefore, the Government will not conduct a cost realism evaluation.

Similarly, the Government will evaluate the total proposed price contained in Attachment X, Pricing Spreadsheet for price evaluation purposes only, but does not commit to paying the full amount if any of the pricing is unsubstantiated or beyond the requested scope of work.

However, the applicable pricing information proposed in both attachments (Pricing Spreadsheet and Direct Equipment) will be used as the awarded pricing information if award is made without discussions, or will be used as the basis of negotiation if award is made with discussions.

Evaluation of Options will be conducted in accordance with FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). Additionally, the resultant contract will contain FAR 52.217-8. Offerors should not include the cost of a six-month extension in their proposals. The cost of such an extension will be agreed upon with the awardee in the event that the extension is exercised.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a), if required). Therefore, the Offeror’s proposal shall contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost/price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines them necessary.

III. Volume III: Factor 3 – Past Performance

The Government will consider the Offeror’s past performance when serving as a prime contractor. All past performance submissions must be within three (3) years of proposal submission to be considered recent. Offerors are required to submit all information identified in Section L under Volume III, Past Performance of the offeror’s proposal.

a) The Government will conduct an evaluation of the past performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the requirements of this solicitation. Consideration will be given to similarity of services performed in hostile, austere and remote locations; complexity; magnitude of effort; and schedule. The four levels of relevancy are as shown below:

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

b) The Performance Confidence Assessment chart below serves as the overall past performance rating. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be assigned reasonably will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent performance shall have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant efforts. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. It is unlikely that Government intervention will be needed in order to obtain the required product/service.

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Little Government intervention is expected to be needed in order to obtain the required product/service.

Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Government has a low expectation the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Some Government intervention is expected to be needed in order to obtain the required product/service.

In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from 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; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and other Government representatives involved in a procurement as necessary; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.