Attachment 4-Section M Amdmt 001.docx

19AQMR23R0005

Attachment 4: 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). The proposal offering the best value is the one that is most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. Such an offer may not necessarily be the one offering the lowest price or receiving the highest non-price rating. For this solicitation, all technical evaluation subfactors, when combined, are more important than past performance, which is more important than price. Award will not be automatically determined by numerical calculation or formula relationship between the non-price factors and price. As technical factors, when combined, become more equal, the evaluated past performance rises in importance and may become the determining factor. The Government will consider price as it relates to overall technical value. For example, the Government may determine that higher technical/past performance ratings are worth a higher proposal cost. Conversely, if offerors’ non price ratings are relatively equal, a lower proposal cost may constitute best value to the Government. To be eligible for award, offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements. Failure to comply with all solicitation requirements may result in the offeror being removed from award consideration. The Government may reject, without consideration of price, any proposal that has been rated “Unacceptable” under any technical factor. Such a proposal is considered technically unacceptable.

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.

· Offeror cannot be determined responsible IAW FAR 9.104-1

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and sub factors 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. For the purposes of this solicitation, categorical terms used to describe different elements of an offeror’s proposal are defined below.

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 sub factor 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: Transportation/Export Plan

b. Subfactor 2: Course Syllabus

c. Subfactor 3: Licenses and Permits

d. Subfactor 4: Certification Plan

e. Subfactor 5: Warranty terms and conditions

The Technical Subfactors 1 and 2 are weighted equally. Subfactors 3, 4, and 5 are weighted equally but are weighted lower than Subfactors 1 and 2.

Note: To receive consideration for award, an overall rating of no less than “ACCEPTABLE” must be achieved for Factor 1 – Technical. If any one of the subfactors is rated unacceptable the overall rating for Factor 1 Technical will be “UNACCEPTABLE.” Below is a summary of the possible adjectival ratings.

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 contract price”, (highlighted in green) located at the bottom of Attachment 2 Pricing Spreadsheet.

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.

The Government will evaluate the total proposed price contained in Attachment 2, Pricing Spreadsheet for price evaluation purposes.

The applicable pricing information proposed in Attachment 2, Pricing Spreadsheet 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.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals 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

Past performance will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform solicitation requirements based on previous and current contract efforts. The Government may share a copy of the Past Performance Profile with the referenced customer to validate the offeror’s report. To facilitate the evaluation of past performance, the offeror shall ensure the accuracy of the information furnished on references (names, addresses, and phone numbers). Failure to provide accurate or complete reference information will have a negative impact on the evaluation of the offeror’s quote and may render it unacceptable.

The Government reserves the right to incorporate past performance information from commercial and Government sources and databases in its final rating determination for this factor. These sources may include, but are not limited to, Government audit reports, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), and commercial sources (such as Dun and Bradstreet Reports). In the event other sources conflict with the Offeror’s past performance information, the Offeror will be given an opportunity to address the inconsistencies.

Consideration will be given to similarity of services performed in Central and South American – Mexico in particular; complexity; magnitude of effort; and schedule. The four levels of relevancy are as shown below:

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

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.

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.

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.