Section M Revised.pdf

M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M.1. 52.217-5 Evaluation of Options. (JUL 1990)

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 the total price for the basic requirement.

Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(End of provision)

M.2. 52.215-S0095 Basis of Award (Jun 2009) Best Value Tradeoff Source Selection Procedures

A contract will be awarded to the Offeror the Smithsonian Institution determines can best meet the identified requirements based upon the Offeror’s proposal. Smithsonian will determine which Offeror can best accomplish the requirements set forth in this solicitation. In making this determination, the Smithsonian will conduct an integrated assessment to determine the best value in accordance with the criteria outlined in this section. The Smithsonian Institution reserves the right in all cases to be the sole judge determining whether a respondent meets the evaluation criteria. A firm must be technically acceptable to be considered for award. Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Smithsonian, considering the evaluation criteria and the requirements of the solicitation.

The Technical Evaluation Team (TEC) will evaluate entities submitting Technical Proposals to ensure that the company’s experience and resources are adequate to provide a high level of excellence in the execution of the project. Each member will individually evaluate each Technical Proposal. If submitting for qualification as a joint-venture, experience as a “team” is more favorable than experience by individual members.

Technical Proposals are evaluated separately from the cost aspects of the offeror’s submission.

It is anticipated that a contract shall be awarded to the responsive, responsible Offeror, whose combined cost and technical proposal is, in the opinion of the Contracting Officer, determined to be the most advantageous and in the best interest of the Smithsonian Institution. A best value decision will be made after considering the combined Technical and Cost factors.

M.3. Determination of Responsibility In order to be considered responsible, an Offeror must demonstrate that it meets the requirements of FAR 9.104-1. The Contracting Officer's determination of an Offeror's responsibility or non-responsibility may be based upon any information obtained by the Contracting Officer and is independent of the evaluation of offers set forth herein.

M.4. EVALUATION FACTORS

Proposals will be evaluated against the following Factors: factors and sub factors in the solicitation. Evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are more important than cost or price.

Within non-price factors, Plan of Accomplishment is most important. Key Personnel and Subcontractors and Past Performance are granted equal weight.

(1) Plan of Accomplishment

(2) Key Personnel and Subcontractors

(3) Past Performance

Technical Ratings - The Technical Ratings reflect the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement.

The following Technical Ratings will be used in evaluating the proposals:

AND

Cost Proposal

Schedule of Values and Contract Price (Base and Alternate 1)

M.5 Proposal Evaluation

A. Plan of Accomplishment shall be evaluated for completeness and demonstration of understanding of all required activities described herein. The Smithsonian reserves the right to give greater consideration to Plans of Accomplishment that accurately show interdependency and elimination of possible conflicts between and among the project activities set forth in the Plan. Failure to provide any of the information listed in L.29 under Plan of Accomplishment will result in a lower score.

B. Key Personnel and Subcontractors shall be evaluated based on relevant training, demonstrated experience with projects of comparable size and complexity to the subject project. The Smithsonian reserves the right to assess the relevance of the experience and comparability of experience. Special consideration will be given to firms and individuals with experience on projects involving a rural campus setting, hospitals or clinics with surgery rooms and significant MEP components.

Higher consideration will be given to firms where the Offeror and subcontractors have worked together over the past 5 years. Failure to provide any of the information listed in L.29 under Key Personnel and Subcontractors will result in a lower score.

C. Past Performance shall be evaluated based on the criteria set forth in Section L. The Smithsonian reserves the right to give greater consideration to Past Performances that are comparable in size and complexity to the subject project and the degree to which such projects were completed on time and within budget. Greater consideration will be given to Projects which demonstrate experience working in: (a) an operating rural campus; (b) hospitals, or clinics with surgery rooms, and; (c) adjacency to staff areas and animal habitats.

Safety shall be evaluated based on Offeror having an experience modification rating (EMR) of less than 1.0 to be considered acceptable. An Offeror with an experience modification rating over 1.0 must provide a written explanation. An explanation and plan of action to mitigate future risks may be considered acceptable. All onsite staff must be safety trained with a strong commitment to implement project safety measures.

M.6. Price Reasonableness

The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Price reasonableness determines whether an Offeror’s price is too high or too low. Analysis of price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 in order to determine price reasonableness. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this solicitation and for the avoidance of doubt, the Government will NOT perform a price realism analysis of the Offeror’s proposal.

Each Offeror’s cost information will be evaluated for, completeness, and reasonableness to determine the Offeror’s understanding of the work and ability to perform the contract. Reasonableness is evaluated by assessing the compatibility of proposed costs with the technical approach proposed. Completeness is evaluated by assessing the level of detail the Offeror provides in cost information for all requirements.

M.7. Unbalanced Prices

Offers must include balanced prices. 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. All offers with separately priced line items or subline items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced. If price analysis techniques indicate that an offer is unbalanced, the contracting officer shall: (i) Consider the risks to the Government associated with the unbalanced pricing in determining the competitive range and in making the source selection decision; and (ii) Consider whether award of the contract will result in paying unreasonably high prices for contract performance. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M.8. Cost Evaluation

Since the evaluation of cost will represent a portion of the total evaluation, it is possible that an Offeror might not be selected for award because of unreasonable, unsupportable, incomplete, inaccurate, or outdated cost proposal information.

The Offeror shall submit pricing information as required in Section B of this Solicitation. Evaluation of Cost will not necessarily be made on an aggregate of all cost factors presented in each proposal. Rather, the Smithsonian reserves the right to evaluate the costs of the proposal based on the Base Bid alone and/or individual elements priced by the offerors.

M.9. Complete Information

Failure to furnish complete information requested in the RFP may cause Offeror to be judged non-responsive and immediately be removed from further consideration.

(End of Section)