SECTION M_2031ZA21R00003.pdf

Section M – Evaluation Criteria

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. Proposals will be evaluated using FAR Part 15.101-2 evaluation procedures, and rated as either Technically Acceptable or Technically Unacceptable.

• Technically Acceptable – Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

• Technically Unacceptable – Proposal clearly does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

Factor I - Technical Approach Factor II – Past Performance Factor III – Price

FACTOR I

TECHNICAL APPROACH AND EXPERIENCE

The Technical Factor evaluation provides an assessment of the offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements.

The BEP shall determine whether the offeror has demonstrated the required expertise, commitment to customer satisfaction and timely delivery of services through an assessment of the offeror’s quality of work, timely performance, effectiveness of management, and compliance with labor and safety standards.

The proposal provides examples and explanations that clearly describe how the principle services regularly provided by the Offeror are similar in scope to the requirements of this PWS and how those services will facilitate the Offeror’s ability to carry out the requirements of the PWS and perform all tasks at a level that consistently meets or exceeds the AQL of the performance standards.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Education, expertise, and experience for proposed personnel is verified with a resume, C/V, brief A feasible staffing plan shall be provided that spells out the positions and skill sets, tasks to be performed, hours to be worked and how the plan will facilitate the Offeror’s ability to carry out the requirements of the PWS and perform all tasks at a level that consistently meets or exceeds the AQL of the performance standards. At least 75% of proposed staffing positions are filled by personnel who are identified, engaged/hired, and readily available to obtain requisite security clearances and commence work.

The offeror shall provide a Training Plan demonstrating detail of the measures and controls that the offeror proposes to implement, including suggested dialog, to ensure the quality training to BEP employees if awarded the contract.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

FACTOR II

PAST PERFORMANCE

The contractor shall submit three (3) past performance references that reflect requirements within this Performance Work Statement. Supply the following information: Company, name and phone number of an individual, project name and size of the project, and indicate that the projects used devices outlined in PWS. These may be contacted to provide references.

Each example of experience shall include: Contract Title; Contract Number; Period of Performance; Name and telephone number of the customer, if Government experience, provide the Contracting Officer (CO) and Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR); Approximate number of the Offeror’s personnel assigned by major skill category; Appropriate (total) dollar value of the Offeror’s services; Description of the Offeror’s services.

When assessing an offeror’s past performance the Government may also contact other sources of information, including but not limited to the following; Federal, State and Local Government agencies, better business bureaus, published media, and electronic databases.

Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See below).

Unacceptable

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

(b) 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 (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating will be considered “acceptable”.

FACTOR III

PRICE

For each proposal, the offeror will be required to submit pricing as listed in Schedule B of the solicitation.

Price will not be scored or rated.

Any resultant contract award will have a Period of Performance (POP) consisting of a Base Period of six (6) months, and four (4) twelve (12) Month Option Periods. The services will be acquired IAW FAR Part 12.

The Government intends to make award without discussions, unless the Contracting Officer determines that discussions are necessary. The Contracting Officer is the only person who will contact the Offeror.

(b) Options. Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government's best interests, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to include the exercise of FAR 52.217-8 to the total price for the basic year requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful Offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

Evaluation of Proposals

The Government will award a FFP type contract resulting from this RFP to the responsible offeror whose proposal is determined to be technically acceptable, and has the lowest evaluated price. Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15.101-2, Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Source Selection Process:

• Technically Acceptable - Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

• Technically Unacceptable - Proposal clearly does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Of the proposals rated Technically Acceptable, award will be made to the offeror with the lowest total proposed price that is both fair and reasonable.

The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussion with offerors. Therefore, the offeror's 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 it is later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary.

Price Evaluation – As part of price evaluation, the government will evaluate its option to extend services (see FAR Clause 52.217-8) by adding one-half of the offer’s final option period price to the offer’s total price. Thus, the offer’s total price for the purpose of evaluation will include the base period + 1st option + 2nd option + 3rd option + 4th option + .5 of 4th option.

Basis of Award

Basis of Award is based upon Acceptability, Past Performance, and Price. To receive consideration for award a rating of ―Acceptable must be achieved for the Technical Acceptability factor and a rating of ―Acceptable for the Past Performance Factor. A rating of ―Unacceptable for any of the sub-factors under the Technical Acceptability Factor will be cause for an overall ―Unacceptable‖ rating of the Technical Acceptability factor. For each proposal found to be eligible for award, Price will become the determining factor for making the award.

All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined are, significantly more important than cost or price. (FAR 15.304)