SECTION_M_Evaluation_Factors.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FAR 52.252-1, “SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB 98)

The following FAR provision is incorporated by reference:

NUMBER TITLE DATE

52.217-5 52.217-8

EVALUATION OF OPTIONS

OPTION TO EXTEND SERVICES

JUL 90

NOV 99

PROCEDURES FOR AWARD

Proposals shall be submitted in accordance with the instructions in Section L. Proposals will be reviewed for compliance with the solicitation requirements. Failure of a proposal to comply with the instructions in Section L may be grounds for exclusion of a proposal from further consideration. If proposals contain more than the specified page limits, only the pages up to the limiting number for that volume will be evaluated.

A proposal may be rejected as being deficient and excluded from further consideration for award under any of the following conditions:

a. If a major rewrite of any section or sections is required to permit evaluation.

b. If proposals contain a charge for failure to exercise an Option CLIN.

BASIS FOR AWARD

The following FAR provision is incorporated by full text:

NUMBER TITLE DATE

52.212-2

EVALUATION-COMMERCIAL ITEMS

OCT 14

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The Offeror shall be evaluated per the following evaluation factors 1) Technical; 2) Past Performance; and 3) Price. Technical is equal to Past Performance, and when Technical and Past Performance are combined, they are more important than Price.

EVALUATION FACTORS

1. TECHNICAL

The Government will evaluate each technical proposal by assessing the likelihood that the proposed technical approach will satisfy the Government’s requirements. This factor will be used to assess the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed technical approach meets all and exceeds any requirement and the degree of understanding of the tasks described in this Solicitation the Offeror demonstrates.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach based on three sub-factors (which are in descending order of importance) as applied against instructions in Section L.

Section M Evaluation Factors

M - 2

The first sub-factor (System Requirements) will be an evaluation of the Offeror’s ability to meet the program requirements by comparing responses in Attachments J-4 through J-9 against System Performance Specifications (SPS) in Attachment J-2.

The second sub-factor (Technical Approach) will be the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the SOO, technical requirements and all solicitation requirements and the extent to which uncertainties are identified and resolutions proposed. The evaluation will include, but will not be limited to, an assessment of the Offeror’s PWS, CLSP (including CM Plan), QCP, and SDII. Proposals found to be unrealistic in terms of performance will be treated as indicating a lack of understanding of the complexities inherent in the requirements.

The third sub-factor (Management) will evaluate how well the Offeror addresses the effective and efficient management of project activities.

Offerors are cautioned to ensure that their proposals are complete, address all requirements, are reflective of the evaluation factors and are submitted on the most favorable terms to reflect their best proposal.

Rating definitions are summarized on the last page of this Section M.

2. PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will assess the past performance of the Offeror. This factor will be evaluated on the basis of relevant and recent past performance for the Offeror, including performance on contracts of similar scope and complexity for similar products involving similar efforts in the expected operational deployment conditions. See SPS at Attachment J-2.

The information presented by the PPQs/CPARs, together with information from any other sources available to the Government (e.g., Government maintained databases and other references, including contractual, technical, and end-user representatives), may provide input for this evaluation factor.

In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant and recent past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, that Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

PPQs/CPARs must be received no later than the proposal submission due date. The KO may consider an Offeror unresponsive and the Offeror will be immediately notified of disqualification.

Rating definitions are summarized on the last page of this Section M.

3. PRICE

This is a FFP requirement that will be evaluated using price analysis to determine the total price base and all options are fair and reasonable, in accordance with FAR 15.404 Proposal Analysis Techniques. The KO reserves the right to request other than cost and pricing data if necessary, in accordance with FAR 15.403-3, Requiring other than data certified cost or pricing data.

Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

Section M Evaluation Factors

M - 3

A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful Offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before an offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

4. DEFINITIONS

TECHNICAL:

TABLE 1 –TECHNICAL RATINGS

SUPERIOR

Proposal demonstrates an excellent understanding of the requirements and an approach that significantly exceeds performance or capability standards. Proposal has exceptional strengths that will significantly benefit the Government and risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

GOOD

Proposal demonstrates a good understanding of the requirements and an approach that exceeds performance or capability standards. Proposal has one or more strengths that will benefit the Government and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

SATISFACTORY

Proposal demonstrates an understanding of the requirements and an approach that meets performance or capability standards. Proposal presents an acceptable solution with few or no strengths and risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate.

MARGINAL

Proposal demonstrates a shallow understanding of the requirements and an approach that only marginally meets performance or capability standards necessary for minimal but acceptable contract performance.

The risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

UNSATISFACTORY

Proposal fails to meet requirements and one or more deficiencies exist for which correction would require a major revision or redirection of the proposal. A contract cannot be awarded with this proposal.

PAST PERFORMANCE:

TABLE 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS

SUPERIOR Based on the Offeror’s past performance record, essentially no doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY

Based on the Offeror’s past performance record, it is likely that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

UNSATISFACTORY

Based on the Offeror’s past performance record, it is unlikely that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NEUTRAL

No relevant performance record is identifiable upon which to base a meaningful performance rating. A search was unable to identify any relevant past performance information for the Offeror, key personnel, or subcontractors. This is neither negative nor positive assessment.

Regardless of Rating Factor, a rating of “Unsatisfactory” in either the Technical or Past Performance Factor category will disqualify a proposal from further consideration and the vendor will be notified immediately and be allowed a pre-award debrief.