Evaluation Factors for Award.docx

TCCCC – FAR 52.212-2 Tailored Evaluation Commercial Items

1. Introduction. This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the offeror’s capabilities and proposals for the TCCC contract. The Government will compare each offeror’s capabilities and proposal elements against the predetermined evaluation criteria related to the Government’s requirement defined herein. 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. 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. Past Performance (Factor 1) is more important than Technical (Factor 2). Technical Factor 2 , Subfactor 1- CASEVAC Material is equally as important as Subfactor 2- NET Training, which is equally as important as Subfactor 3 -Quality, which is equally as important as Subfactor 4 -Delivery. Factor 2 Technical is more important than Factor 3 Price. Factors 1 and 2, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 3. The degree of importance of price as a factor could become greater depending upon the equality of the proposals for other evaluated factors. As the difference in non-price proposals become smaller, then price becomes more important. Where competing proposals are determined to be substantially equal after evaluation of all non-price factors, the total price and other price factors could become the controlling factor. 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. 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).

2. Evaluation. The Government will evaluate all proposals received against Qualifying Criteria, Technical, Past Performance, and Price. All qualifying criteria are evaluated on an acceptable / unacceptable basis. A confidence rating will be used to evaluate Technical. 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 as that is predefined amount established by the Government.

2.1. Past Performance (Factor 1) is more important than Technical (Factor 2). Technical Factor 2 , Subfactor 1- CASEVAC Material is equally as important as Subfactor 2- NET Training, which is equally as important as Subfactor 3 -Quality, which is equally as important as Subfactor 4 -Delivery. Factor 2, Technical, is more important than Factor 3, Price. Factors 1 and 2, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 3.

Table - 4 Evaluation Methodology

Proposal Submissions

Qualifying Criteria

Subfactor 1

Subfactor 2

Subfactor 3

Subfactor 4

3. Evaluation Criteria.

3.1. 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. 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.

3.1.1. 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.

3.1.2. 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.

3.1.3. Teaming agreements and letters of intent were provided.

3.2. VOLUME II – PAST PERFORMANACE: (FACTOR I) 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 ITO regarding how well the contractor performed or is performing the same or similar type of work under other contracts.

3.2.1. 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.

3.2.2. The Government will evaluate the Past Performance of the efforts (that meet the recency and relevancy criteria in the ITO) 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 was 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.

3.2.3. 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

3.3. VOLUME III – TECHNICAL: (FACTOR II)

3.3.1. The Government will determine the extent to which the proposal meets and/or exceeds the requirements and to what degree the proposed approach indicates an understanding of the requirements to achieve successful performance of the requirements per the definitions contained within Table 7. A proposal that exceeds a requirement, rather than merely meeting it, will be considered by the Government in evaluation as presenting greater value or less risk to the Government. The Government will evaluate offeror’s proposal. If information regarding evaluation factor/subfactors is contained elsewhere in the proposal other than Volume 2 then the Government may evaluate such information, but the Government has no responsibility to research and find improperly referenced information. The Factor’s evaluation will be based on the identified significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and/or deficiencies of the proposal. Evaluation of risk associated with the offeror’s proposal for this Factor is inherent in the evaluation. The Government will roll up Subfactor evaluations into an overall Technical Factor rating. Each subfactor evaluation criteria shall not receive an independent rating. The proposal should fully address each of the evaluation criteria. The Government shall assign an overall technical rating to the results of its evaluation. If a proposal demonstrates a failure to meet a Government requirement, it may be considered a deficiency in the offeror’s proposal.

3.3.2. 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.

3.3.3. 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.

3.3.4. 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.

3.3.5. 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 in Section 52.211-9 – Time of Delivery of the RFP. A proposal that exceeds a requirement, rather than merely meeting it, will be considered by the Government in evaluation as presenting greater value or less risk to the Government. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the rationale for the delivery schedule demonstrates an understanding of the requirements, to include information on: capacity (either in-house or partnership), inventory ordering/delivery network, and facilities layout.

Table 7- Combined Technical/Risk Rating

thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable

Table 8- Rating Definitions

Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

3.4. VOLUME IV- PRICE (FACTOR 3) Price will be evaluated in order to determine that it is fair and reasonable IAW FAR 15.404. The total price for each CLIN will be calculated by multiplying a quantity of one (1) by the average price of the offeror’s proposed unit price covering years one (1) through seven (7).

The Government will roll up all total seven (7) year CLIN prices 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.

3.4.1. 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.