Source_Selection.pdf

pg. 1

Source Selection &

Evaluation Criteria Information

General

The statement of work (SOW) provides the government's overall objectives and performance requirements for this solicitation. Offerors shall use the SOW as the basis for preparing their proposal package. Two (2) evaluation factors will be used to assess proposals/quotes for support services to develop and host the Marine Transportation System National Advisory Committee

(MTSNAC) Full committee meetings and Subcommittee meetings during the contract period.

Evaluation Criteria

For purposes of making an evaluation, the offeror's proposal will be evaluated according to the evaluation criteria and process set forth below. The Government will not consider information provided in the Executive Summary (if included) in its evaluation.

The evaluation of the Offeror's capability to perform the contract requirements will consider the following three evaluation factors listed in order of importance:

Factor 1: Technical Approach/Qualifications

Offerors are encouraged to provide a project plan that will provide the Government with a high level of confidence that the offeror has a thorough understanding of this requirement and the available resources to successfully perform. The offeror's project plan shall demonstrate how they intend to meet the requirements of the SOW including deliverables as evidenced by a realistic separation of the project into viable components and/or milestones.

The Offeror provides a proposal shall include the following:

A project plan and a work breakdown staffing plan that thoroughly demonstrates to the

Government that the Offeror

A thorough understanding of the SOW, including thoroughness shown in understanding the objectives of the SOW and specific tasks, and planned execution of the project

Evidence of specific methods and techniques for completing realistic tasks including viable approach/plan of action

Available resources to address anticipated potential problem areas; and feasibility of solutions to problems and future integration

Degree to which the offerors proposal demonstrates understanding of logistics, schedule and any other issues the Government should be aware of

Proposals will be evaluated on how well the business components the Offeror describes aligns with the proposed technical activities. Lack of sufficient support in this section could result in the offeror receiving a low rating.

pg. 2

The Adjectival Ratings for Factor 1 are shown in the table below:

Technical Rating Chart

ASSESSMENT

RATINGS

DEFINITION

Exceptional/High

Confidence

Based on the offeror's performance record, essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Very

Good/Significant

Confidence

Based on the offeror's performance record, little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory

Confidence/Neutral

Based on the offeror's performance record, some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort or no performance record identifiable (see FAR 15.305(a) (2) (iii) and (iv)).

Marginal/Little

Confidence

Based on the offeror's performance record, significant doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the offeror's existing processes may be necessary to achieve contract requirements.

Unsatisfactory/No

Confidence

Based on the offeror's performance record, extreme doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Past Performance

Offerors shall submit two (2) current past performance references (within the last five (5) years) related to this procurement. The information provided should include (i.e. point of contact, description of work and amount of project).

The Government will contact references cited by the offeror in the past performance section of the Offeror's proposal as well as other relevant individuals. The Government may obtain additional information on past performance from other sources such as Government past performance databases, Inspector General reports and the Government Accountability Office reports.

If the Offeror provides no past performance information and the Government receives no past performance information from other sources sought, then the offeror will receive a neutral past performance evaluation. In conducting a performance relevancy assessment, an offeror will be assigned one of the ratings below:

pg. 3

Past Performance Rating Chart

Factor 2: Price/Cost (Base + 3 Option Years)

The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of the total price in accordance with FAR Part

15.4. The Government will evaluate the offer for award purposes by adding the total price for all options (if applicable) to the total price for the basic requirement. The evaluation will be based on how well the cost proposal is assessed to be realistic, reasonable and complete. Costs proposed must reflect the efforts described in the technical proposal.

Cost analysis is the review and evaluation of any of the separate cost elements and profit or fee in an offeror's proposal as needed to determine a fair and reasonable price or to determine cost realism. Realism determines how well the proposed costs represent what the cost of the contract should be, assuming reasonable economy and efficiency.

Other Information

Acceptability of the Offer: The Government will determine the acceptability of each offer on a pass or fail basis. An offer is acceptable when it manifests the Offeror's assent, without exception, to the terms and conditions of the solicitation, including attachments. If the Offeror takes exception to any of the terms and conditions of the solicitation or fails to meet any of the

ASSESSMENT RATINGS DEFINITION

(E) Exceptional

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the

Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

(VG) Very Good

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the

Government/Owner’s benefit. 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.

(S) Satisfactory

Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory

(M) Marginal

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions.

The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginal effective or were not fully implemented.

(U) Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or ineffective.

(N) Not Applicable No Information or did not apply to your contract. Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

pg. 4 requirements of the solicitation, then the Government may consider the Offeror's offer to be unacceptable and thereby reject it from evaluation and consideration for award.

Unbalanced Offers: The Government reserves the right to reject the offer if it is materially unbalanced as to prices and it is determined that award on such an offer would not result in the lowest overall cost to the Government, or may otherwise be improper. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. An offer is unbalanced when it is based on prices significantly less than cost for some work and/or prices which are significantly overstated for other work, or as otherwise set forth under FAR 15.404-

1(g).

Discussions: The Government may award a contract based on initial offer received without discussions. Therefore, the initial offer shall contain the offeror's best terms from a technical and cost or price standpoint. Nonetheless, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is in the best interest of the Government.

Basis for Award

Unless all offers are rejected, award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to be the best overall value, price and other factors considered. Within the best value continuum, the Government will employ a trade-off analysis of cost or price and non-cost factors (FAR 15.101-1) in evaluating the proposals submitted.

Offerors must satisfy the requirements described in the performance criteria outlined in the

SOW, as well as other RFP requirements.

The determination of best value shall be based on a trade-off process utilizing a comparative assessment of the proposal against the factors set forth above. In determining which proposal provides the best value to the Government, when combined, Technical and Past Performance are significantly more important than Cost/Price.

The Government will not award a contract based on an unacceptable offer. Based upon the results of the integrated assessment of the technical, past performance and cost/price proposals, the Government may make an award to other than the lowest-priced offeror or the offeror with the highest technical score if the source selection official determines that to do so would result in the best value to the Government.