Draft Evaluation Factors for Award ID04200024 Oct 2020.docx

Part e (3) Solicitation Provisions FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation Commercial Items (October 2014) Tailored DRAFT Introduction. This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the offeror’s capabilities and proposals for the TCCC contract. This acquisition will utilize Tradeoff Source Selection procedures, with technical proposals, to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. Tradeoffs will be made only between Past Performance and price among those offerors who have been determined technically acceptable. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the SOW, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described herein. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technically acceptable proposal, and superior Past Performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference with lower priced offerors. Best value is defined as the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. The best value will be determined by comparing differences in the value of non-price features with differences in price to the Government. In making this comparison, the Government is more concerned with obtaining superior non-price features than with making an award at the lowest overall price to the Government; the offeror should submit their best terms in the initial proposal. Price is not expected to be the controlling factor in the selection of an offeror for award. However, the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall price to achieve slightly superior non-price features. Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination of factors deemed most advantageous to the government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

For this solicitation, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the best value analysis and potential trade-off between Past Performance and Price. The Order of Importance is used to explain how the other factors will be traded off on technically acceptable proposals. For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor 2 (Past Performance) will be evaluated on a basis equal to Factor 3 (Price). With respect to the non-price factors, offerors are on notice that an offeror is solely responsible for furnishing in its proposal adequate details to allow the Government to assess the offer on the factor. An offeror’s failure to submit adequate details may result in the Government assigning weakness or increased risk to successful performance associated with the offeror’s proposal. Additionally, an offeror’s failure to address an element of a Technical Approach subfactor may result in a deficiency being assigned, which could deem the proposal unawardable. The Government reserves the right to make a selection based upon initial submissions, so the offeror should submit their best terms in the initial proposal. The Government reserves the right to enter into discussions with offerors if determined necessary. The Government also reserves the right to make no award. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. To arrive at a source selection decision, the Source Selection Authority will perform an integrated assessment using the evaluation factors described in Section M. This may result in awards being made to the higher non-price rated, potentially higher priced offeror(s).

Evaluation. The Government will evaluate all proposals received against Qualifying Criteria, Technical, Past Performance, and Price. The government will evaluate all factors for all proposals. Initial ratings for all factors will be established for each offeror in determining the competitive range, if discussions are opened. All qualifying criteria are evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. The government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable, or Unacceptable. A proposal that is deemed unacceptable in qualifying criteria or of Factor 1 technical will be eliminated from the competition. The proposals shall be evaluated against the subfactors listed in paragraph 2.2 below. Past Performance will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.3 below. Price will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.4 below. For the award decision, the SSA will then assess the Past Performance ratings and Price for all technically acceptable offers to make an integrated assessment as to which offeror provides the best value to the government. Past Performance will receive an overall confidence level rating. The Price Area will not be given a confidence rating or scored. A Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated and evaluated in order to determine that it is fair and reasonable IAW FAR 15.404. The TEP will not establish the contract ceiling.

1.1. Past Performance (Factor 2) is equally important as Price (Factor 3).

Table - 4 Evaluation Methodology

Proposal Submissions

Qualifying Criteria

Subfactor 1

Subfactor 2

Subfactor 3

Subfactor 4

2. Evaluation Criteria.

2.1. VOLUME I - Qualifying Criteria. Information submitted for the qualifying criteria will be evaluated to determine if the proposal meets the criteria in ITO 3.1 in order to be determined acceptable. If the offeror fails any of the qualifying criteria, they will be unacceptable and may be determined ineligible for award and further evaluation. The offerors will be assessed as acceptable if the minimum requirements below have been met. Any offeror deemed unacceptable on any one or more of the qualifying criteria that is deemed ineligible for award shall not have its proposal further evaluated by the Government under the remaining factors of evaluation, unless the Government in its sole discretion elects to allow offerors to submit revised proposal.

2.1.1. Contract Forms and Certifications. The offeror provided all of the information contained in ITO 3.1.1. indicating that it is eligible for a Government contract based on the offeror’s responses to the representations, all contract forms and other statements required by the RFP. All contract forms, representations, and certifications are completed as required.

2.1.2. The Government may conduct a pre-award survey (PAS) as part of this source selection. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine each offeror's capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation. If conducted, the results will be assessed under the applicable factors/subfactors and will be used to validate and confirm the offeror's written proposal.

2.1.3. Teaming agreements and letters of intent were provided.

2.2. VOLUME II – TECHNICAL: (FACTOR I)

2.2.1. Each subfactor within the technical factor will receive one of the ratings described below based on the criteria listed below. Individual subfactor ratings will be used to determine the overall technical acceptability of each offeror. To be determined technically acceptable at the factor level, the offeror must be rated acceptable in each subfactor. A final unacceptable subfactor assessment will determine an overall technical unacceptable rating, and therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. If information regarding evaluation factor/subfactors is contained elsewhere in the proposal other than Volume II then the Government may evaluate such information, but the Government has no responsibility to research and find improperly referenced information. If a proposal demonstrates a failure to meet a Government requirement, it may be considered a deficiency in the offeror’s proposal.

TABLE 1- TECHNICAL EVALUATION

2.2.2. Subfactor 1: CASEVAC Materiel (Sets/Kits/Modules/Repair Parts) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates the offeror’s ability to execute the requirements of the Statement of Work. To be acceptable, the offeror’s approach must indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements, provide convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements with little potential for disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. (Ability to source all items categorized as “name brand only items)

2.2.3. Subfactor 2: New Equipment Training (NET) Course The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates the offeror’s ability to execute the requirements of the Statement of Work. To be acceptable, the offeror’s approach must indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements, provide convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements with little potential for disruption of schedule or degradation of performance.

2.2.4. Subfactor 3: Quality Control Plan The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine the extent to which offeror’s proposed process controls and inspection methods and standards, followed from the purchase of all materials and supplies to the shipment, meet the requirement; and the extent to which nonconforming parts found during the in-coming inspection, assembly process, and final inspection are reported and resolved in an effective manner. To be acceptable, the offeror’s approach must indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements, provide convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements with little potential for disruption of schedule or degradation of performance.

2.2.5. Subfactor: Delivery The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine the extent to which the offeror’s proposed production approach meets and/or exceeds the Government’s requirements

2.3. VOLUME III – PAST PERFORMANCE: (FACTOR II) The Past Performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing services and products that meet the users’ needs and in Past Performance regarding subcontracting. Past Performance evaluation shall focus on the recency and relevancy as defined in the General Instructions to Offerors regarding how well the contractor performed or is performing the same or similar type of work under other contracts. More relevant performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. In assessing relevancy, the Government may consider all information it receives or obtains, such as contract type and dollar value, program phase, division of company, and major subcontractors, as well as performance information related to efforts the Offeror or major subcontractors performed for other agencies of Federal, State, or local Government, and commercial customers. A record of more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and may have more influence on confidence assessment than a favorable record of less relevant past performance. More recent performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent performance. The government may consider Past Performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis.

2.3.1. The Government will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine how closely the work performed under those efforts relates to the current requirement. The performance evaluation will be based on the data gathered by information sheets, questionnaires, and the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) reports. The Government is not limited to these resources.

2.3.2. The Government will evaluate the Past Performance of the efforts (that meet the recency and relevancy criteria in the ITO, Table 3) in order to determine the performance assessment ratings for each effort. The definitions found in Table 5 will be utilized.

Table 5 – Performance Assessment Ratings

The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

* The references to “contractual requirements” and “contractual performance” within the descriptions of the Ratings in Table 5 are references to the active or completed contracts by the contractor; they are not references to the requirements of this RFP.

2.3.3. The Government will evaluate the Past Performance of all recent and relevant efforts in order to determine the Government’s overall level of confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the required effort. The Confidence Ratings with definitions that will be utilized are contained within Table 6.

Table 6- Performance Confidence Assessment

Note: With regards to the best value award decision, all offerors rated as “High Confidence” will be considered equal for the Past Performance Factor.

2.4. VOLUME IV- PRICE (FACTOR 3) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine a Total Evaluated Price. Price will be evaluated in order to determine that it is fair and reasonable IAW FAR 15.404. The TEP for each CLIN will be calculated by multiplying a quantity of one (1) by the price of the offeror’s proposed unit pricing under each CLIN covering years one (1) through seven (7), additionally with the exception of OCONUS travel which will include the average price of all classes for each year multiplied by 7.

The Government will roll up all total seven (7) year CLIN prices and LOM items for the TEP as outlined in the pricing attachment. Price will not receive a confidence rating or score. TEP: For evaluation purposes only, the Total Evaluated Price is the sum of the total price submitted for (a) the base period and (b) all option periods. Evaluation of options will not obligate the government to exercise the option(s).

Reasonableness: The proposed price will be evaluated for reasonableness. The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. The Government may also utilize comparisons of proposed prices with Independent Government Cost Estimates (IGCE), competition, or any other measure deemed appropriate.

Balance: The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices are significantly unbalanced.

2.4.1. Prices for Technical Data. The Contracting Officer will ensure the proposal contains prices for all data items (even those not separately priced) required under this to ensure it does not include a requirement for data that the contractor has delivered or is obligated to deliver to the Government under another contract or subcontract, and that the offeror identifies any such data required by the solicitation. Where duplicate data is desired, the Government will ensure that contract price includes the costs of duplication, but not of preparation, of such duplicate data. The Government will ensure the proposal provides an estimated price IAW 5652.215-9005 Estimated Prices for Data (2000) for evaluation purposes with its basis for each report/data identified in the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL). This will be used to evaluate the cost to the Government of data items in terms of their management, product, or engineering value in accordance with DFARS 215.470.