SECTION M-001 1-17-24.pdf

Section M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 GENERAL

This source selection is being conducted on a competitive basis, restricted to 8(a) Business Development Participants only.

M.2 BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government will use the best value–tradeoff source selection process, as defined in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-1 (Tradeoff Process).

The Government intends to award approximately three (3) to five (5) indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts as a result of this solicitation.

However, the Government reserves the right to award fewer or more awards, including no award at all, depending on the quality of the proposals submitted or budgetary limitations.

Award will be made to the offeror(s):

a) which is deemed responsible;

b) whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements; and

c) whose proposal is determined to provide the best value to the

Government.

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.

The following evaluation criteria are outlined:

a) NCF 1 – Experience

b) NCF 2 – Seed and Sample Delivery Order Proposals, including Business.

c) NCF 3 – Past Performance

d) Factor 4 – Price

NCF 1 is of greatest importance when compared to the remainder of the evaluation criteria. NCF 2 and 3 are of equal importance. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price. As proposals become more equal in technical merits, price will become more important.

To receive consideration for award, an overall rating of no less than “Some Confidence” must be achieved for Non-Cost Factors 1 and 2. Additionally, award may not be issued to an offeror receiving an overall rating of No Confidence for Past Performance.

The technical proposal evaluation is an assessment of the proposal and the government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to perform the prospective contract successfully. Subjective judgment on the part of the Government is implicit in the technical evaluation process. The Contracting Officer shall determine what trade-off between non-cost factors and price promises the greatest value to the Government. Therefore, the Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest offered price, as Technical is rated higher or more important than cost.

M.3 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 the Offeror fails to submit any of the required proposal documents specified in Section L, or the Offeror submits a cost/price proposal that cannot be adequately explained or substantiated.

Terms used to describe 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.

Rating Scheme: Each Non-Cost Factor 1-3 will receive a confidence rating and will be evaluated as shown in the table below:

Confidence Ratings & Definitions High Confidence The Government has high confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with little or no Government intervention.

Some Confidence The Government has some confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with some Government intervention.

Low Confidence The Government has low confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, or will be successful in performing the contract even with Government intervention.

M.4 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal volumes shall address each Technical Non- Cost Factor (NCF) as it applies to the requirements set forth in this solicitation.

Evaluators will consider the extent to which the offeror addresses the following Non-Cost Factors from Section L. The Technical Evaluation Team will document Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, Deficiencies, and Risks when determining Confidence Ratings for each of the below NCFs:

a) Phase I, Volume I: Non-Cost Factor 1 – Experience: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s recent and relevant Project Experiences to determine if they demonstrate global capabilities similar in scope and complexity to the FA6 – Vehicle activities found in this solicitation’s Scope of the IDIQ Contract.

Experience operating in a wide geographic area of OCONUS regions is desirable, with an emphasis on operations in Colombia, Haiti, and Ukraine.

Only the first ten (10) experiences are to be evaluated. A confidence rating will be assigned as described in Section M.3 above.

--Advisory down-select notifications will be provided to request Phase II proposals after evaluation is complete of Phase I, Volume I.--

b) Phase II, Volume II: Non-Cost Factor 2 – Seed and Sample Delivery Order Proposals: The Government will evaluate how well the offeror’s proposed vehicle specifications, armoring experience and certifications, delivery and logistics plan, warranty terms and service locations, addresses both Delivery Order Request for Proposal requirements (see Attachments 1 and 2). A single confidence rating reflecting both DORP proposals will be assigned as described in Section M.3 above. The business tab will be reviewed for responsiveness and responsibility.

c) Phase II, Volume III: Non-Cost Factor 3 – Past Performance

The Government will consider the recency and relevancy of the Offeror’s past performance to form a confidence assessment. Recent is defined as current or completed performance within the past five (5) years from the date of the solicitation closing. To be relevant, the past performance shall be recent and involve efforts the same as or similar to those required by NCF 1 - Experience.

The Government will conduct an evaluation of the past performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those projects relate to the requirements of this solicitation.

The four levels of relevancy are as shown and defined below:

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

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Description Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved comparable scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved much of the 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.

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.

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

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

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. It is unlikely that Government intervention will be needed in order to obtain the required product/service.

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. Little Government intervention is expected to be needed in order to obtain the required product/service.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

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.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the 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.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, substantial doubt exists that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Government, to include, but not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), 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.

Phase II, Volume IV: Factor 5 – Price Proposal

The Government will evaluate price to ensure that the awarded price is fair and reasonable. The principal 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. Price will not be scored.

The total evaluated price will include the price of all requirements from the seed and sample DORPs. The seed DORP is a firm requirement, while the sample requirement is partially firm as the quantities do not reflect the actual requirement. All unit prices offered during this competition shall be honored even when a partial award is issued, otherwise the IDIQ holder will face IDIQ termination for cause. Therefore, offeror’s shall not attempt to artificially price units in attempt to buy-in for IDIQ award.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award without discussions with Offerors. 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.