2 - Attachment 2_11222 52.212-2 Evaluation Factors.docx

Attachment 2 52.212-2 – Evaluation Factors for Award

Basis for Contract Award:

This acquisition will utilize Trade off process source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 as supplemented to achieve Best Value. Technical tradeoffs will be made and additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability as it pertains to the requirements set forth in the PWS. Proposals will be evaluated on a 40/50/10 weighted ranking based on Price, Technical Factors, and Past Performance, respectively. Technical Factors will be evaluated more than price and price will be evaluated more than past performance. Award will be made to the contractor whose proposal ranks highest, is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements. The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certification and all other information required by this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary by the Contracting Officer.

Number of Contracts to be Awarded:

The Government intends to select one contractor to supply C-130 Aircraft Maintenance Stands Shipping. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

Correction Potential of Proposals:

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any proposal uncertainty. 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 reasonably correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Evaluation Factors and Subfactors The Government will evaluate for acceptability the factors and subfactors described below:

Factor One – Price

Evaluation Methodology Evaluation of Technical Factors will be performed by an engineer from the controlling activity and proposals will be ranked according to Section 2.2. Only those Offerors determined to be technically acceptable either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award.

A price evaluation will be performed for all offerors in accordance with Section 2.2 and proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest price based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

A past performance evaluation will be performed. Only those Offerors with a satisfactory past performance rating either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award.

Proposals will be evaluated on a 40/50/10 weighted ranking based on Price, Technical Factors, and Past Performance, respectively. Technical Factors will be evaluated more than price and price will be evaluated more than past performance. Award will be made to the contractor whose proposal ranks highest, is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements.

Price factor The pricing criteria used for evaluation are (1) completeness, (2) price reasonableness, and (3) Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

Completeness – The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with attachment of the RFP. Incomplete price submissions will NOT be evaluated, and the proposal may be eliminated from the competition.

Price Reasonableness – The offerors price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 13. Generally, adequate price competition will satisfy the criteria of price reasonableness.

Total Evaluated Price (TEP) – The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the offeror’s proposed prices for CLINS 0001 – 0003. All prices that comprise the TEP are contractually binding, will be firm fixed price (FFP), and must be populated.

Unbalanced Pricing – Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items or subline items. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Technical Factor Technical proposals will be evaluated for acceptability in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section. The Offeror’s Technical Proposal must convey to the Government that the Offeror is capable, possesses adequate technical expertise and experience, possesses sufficient resources, and is able to plan, organize, and use those resources in a coordinated and timely fashion to meet the needs of the Government. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Technical Proposal to ensure that the offeror can sufficiently perform the requirements within the PWS adequately with emphasis on the elements of the technical subfactors listed below. The Technical Proposal shall explain how the contractor will accomplish/satisfy the requirements. The Technical Proposal shall NOT simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet the requirements in the PWS. If an Offeror rephrases/restates the PWS, their Technical Proposal will be unacceptable.

The Technical Proposal will be evaluated on a 1 through 5 rating basis with 5 being the highest. Each proposal will be assigned one of the following ratings during the technical evaluation:

Technical Subfactor 1: Technical Capability Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed technical capability and overall approach for meeting the PWS requirements. The proposal shall demonstrate a complete, and thorough transportation plan for C-130 Aircraft Maintenance Stands Shipping and clearly describe the full capability that their company possesses the knowledge to meet the PWS requirements:

a. Delivery Schedule (PWS section 3.1.2)

b. Documentation and Reporting (PWS section 3.1.4)

c. Safety and Security (PWS section 3.1.5)

d. Customer Service (PWS section 3.1.6)

e. Loading and Unloading (PWS section 3.1.7)

f. Insurance and Liability (PWS section 3.1.8) Technical Subfactor 2: Management Capability Plan (see 52.212-1, 4.2) Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed Management Capability Plan and overall approach to meeting requirements described in SOW. This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal substantiates a comprehensive approach for all the following:

A commitment to perform all Government requirements as described in the PWS to reduce risk of negative system impacts. (PWS 2.3) An ability to provide qualified personnel that meet PWS requirements (PWS section 3.1.5.1.1).

An ability to provide shipment location via telephone/email during transportation to maximize coordination at final destination. (PWS 3.1.3.2) Past Performance Factor:

Aspects of Past Performance Evaluation. The past performance evaluation results are an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertains to the services outlined in the solicitation requirements.

Ratings. The past performance factor will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis and assigned one of the following ratings:

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. First, an evaluation of whether the offeror’s present/past performance is both recent and relevant to the effort to be acquired. In establishing what is relevant, consideration will be given to the aspects of an offeror’s contract history that will give the most confidence that the offeror will satisfy this solicitation.

Recency – To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past 3 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition may not be evaluated.

Relevancy – The relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the technical subfactors and price factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to service similarity, type of effort, and contract scope and type. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. Past performance information that fails this condition may not be evaluated.

Second, an evaluation to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of this 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.

Past performance information shall be obtained from any sources available to the Government to include, but not limited to, PPIRS or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, the Defense Contract Management Agency, and commercial clients.

Any unacceptable rating given to a small business will be referred to the Small Business Administration pursuant to FAR 15.101-2(b)(1) for treatment.

Discussions:

It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions, therefore, it is imperative that offerors submit their best terms initially. However, if during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), and the Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS:

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.