CON-100 INSTRUCTIONS - Tradeoffs.docx

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND OTHER STATEMENTS TO OFFERORS

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

A. The Government reserves the right to award without negotiations based upon the initial evaluation of the proposals but reserves the right to open negotiations if determined to be necessary. All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by a team of Government personnel. The proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria provided in the solicitation. Using the tradeoff process under best value, it may be in the Government's best interest to consider award to other than the lowest price Offeror or other than highest rated Offeror. The intent is to award to the Offeror that offers the best value to the Government. “Best Value” means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirements. Past Performance is approximately equal to Price.

B. Factor 1 Past Performance: Past Performance will be evaluated on the basis of recency, relevancy, and quality to arrive at an overall Confidence Rating.

Recency and Relevancy Evaluation: The Government will evaluate each project submitted to ensure the project is recent, meaning projects must have been completed by the prime contractor within the last ten years and 100% complete. Projects older than ten years and 100% completed will not be evaluated. The Government will evaluate each recent project to determine the relevancy of the project to the solicitation requirements. The relevancy determination will be based on the Project Information Sheet provided by the Offeror. Projects under $10 million and under 5,000 square feet will not be evaluated.

Performance Quality Assessment: The Government will consider the performance quality of any submitted project determined to be recent and rated somewhat relevant, relevant, or very relevant. In addition to evaluating the extent to which the Offeror’s performance meets contract specification requirements, the assessment will also consider aspects such as: the Offeror’s adhering to schedules (including the administrative aspects of performance); reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction; controlling project cost; the timeliness of contract completion and submission of deliverables; the contractor’s compliance with the terms and conditions of the contract; the overall quality of the work performed on the contract; the Offeror’s managerial performance (to include use and control of subcontractors); and whether or not the reference would enter into a contract with the contractor again.

The Government reserves the right to conduct a past performance assessment using information obtained from CPARS and any other sources deemed appropriate by the CO. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror. While the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of providing current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

Overall Performance Confidence Rating: The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the Offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements based on the Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance. The Government will combine the recency, relevancy, and performance quality assessment considered for the Offeror to assign a single Past Performance Confidence Rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence or No Confidence.

Per FAR 15.202 (C)(1), offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Offerors with no recent and relevant performance history or whose performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the “Neutral Confidence” rating, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably

C. Factor 2 Price: The total evaluated price will be determined by the Offeror's price provided on the Price Schedule.

Note: If none of the offerors are within the available funding limitation or is otherwise determined to be other than fair and reasonable, the VA reserves the right to enter into negotiations with those offerors who are determined to be within the competitive range.

If the Offeror communicates in its proposal any qualifications, exceptions, exclusions, or conditions to the proposed prices in the Offerors proposal documents, the Contracting Officer may reject the proposal and exclude the Offeror from further negotiations.