Evaluation_Factors_(Sec_M).pdf

SECTION M – EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR AWARD

M.1 GENERAL

To be acceptable and eligible for evaluation, proposals must be prepared in accordance with Section L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS, and must meet all the requirements set forth in the other sections of this solicitation. The Government will make an initial review of proposals to determine compliance with these instructions. The Government may determine an Offeror to be unacceptable and exclude it from further consideration for failure to comply with Section L.

(a) The Government intends to evaluate Offerors in accordance with this Section and make contract award to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government. “Best value” is defined as the offer that results in the most advantageous solution for the Government, in consideration of technical, cost, and other factors.

(b) The submitted technical information will be scored by a Technical Evaluation Committee using the technical evaluation factors shown below. When evaluating the competing Offerors, USAID will consider the written qualifications/capability information provided by the Offerors, and any other information obtained through its own research.

(c) The Government reserves the right to request oral presentation of Offerors to augment the submitted written proposal.

(d) For overall evaluation purposes, technical factors are considered significantly more important than cost/price factors.

(e) The Government may award a contract without discussions with Offerors in accordance with FAR 52.215-1.

M.2 TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

Technical proposals will be evaluated according to the factors prescribed below. Offerors must note that the following factors: (1) serve as the standard against which all proposals will be evaluated; and (2) serve to identify the significant matters which Offerors must address in their proposals.

Technical Evaluation Factors Order of Importance

1. Technical Approach The factors are presented in descending order of importance. “Technical Approach” is more heavily weighted than “Management Approach”. “Management Approach” is more heavily weighted than “Past Performance”.

2. Management Approach

3. Past Performance

M.2.1 Factor 1 –Technical Approach

(a) The extent to which the Offeror’s Technical Approach and Performance Work Statement are clear, logical and reasonably likely to achieve the Activity’s Goal and Objectives described in Section J.5 and fully integrate all the Guiding Principles described in Section J.6.

(b) The Offeror’s Technical Approach and Performance Work Statement will be evaluated as part of this factor.

M.2.2 Factor 2 – Management Approach

(a) The extent to which the Offeror’s Management Approach demonstrates the capability to successfully implement the proposed Technical Approach.

(b) The Offeror’s Management and Staffing Plan and Organizational Chart will be evaluated as part of this factor.

M.2.3 Factor 3 – Past Performance

(a) The Contractor and major subcontractor performance information will be used for both the responsibility determination and best value decision. The Government may use performance information obtained from other than the sources identified by the Offeror/subcontractor. The Government will utilize existing databases of contractor performance information and solicit additional information from the information provided as Annex C of the Technical Proposal and from other sources if and when the Contracting Officer finds the existing databases to be insufficient for evaluating an Offeror’s performance.

(b) Adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond will be addressed in accordance with the policies and procedures set forth in the FAR 15.3.

(c) The Government will initially determine the relevance of similar performance information as a predictor of probable performance under the subject requirement. USAID may give more weight to performance information that is considered more relevant and/or more current.

(d) The contractor performance information determined to be relevant will be evaluated in accordance with the elements below:

(1) Quality, including overall performance to accomplish logistic planning, success in meeting quality objectives and consistency in meeting goals and targets.

(2) Cost control, including forecasting costs as well as accuracy in financial reporting.

(3) Schedule, including the timeliness against the completion of the contract, task orders, milestones, delivery schedules, and administrative requirements (e.g., efforts that contribute to or affect the schedule variance).

(4) Management or business relations, addressing the history of professional behavior and overall business-like concern for the interests of the customer, including the contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior (to include timely identification of issues in controversy), customer satisfaction, timely award and management of subcontracts, cooperative attitude in remedying problems, and timely completion of all administrative requirements, management of key personnel, including appropriateness of personnel for the job and prompt and satisfactory changes when problems with clients were identified.

(5) Regulatory Compliance, including compliance with all terms and conditions in the awards relating to applicable regulations and codes (financial, environmental, safety, and other reporting requirements).

(e) An Offeror’s performance will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably when:

(1) The Offeror lacks relevant performance history,

(2) Information on performance is not available, or

(3) The Offeror is a member of a class of offerors where there is provision not to rate the class against a sub-factor.

When this occurs, an Offeror lacking relevant performance history is assigned a "neutral" rating. Prior to assigning a "neutral" past performance rating, the Contracting Officer may take into account a broad range of information related to an Offeror's performance.

M.3 COST EVALUATION

Evaluation points will not be awarded for cost. The proposed cost/price will be evaluated for reasonableness and realism in accordance with FAR 15.404. Evaluation of the cost proposal will include a cost analysis to establish reasonableness of the Offeror’s price (including the reasonableness of the fee proposed); a cost realism analysis to determine what the Government should realistically expect to pay for the proposed effort, the Offeror’s understanding of the work, and the Offeror’s ability to perform the contract in accordance with the proposed technical approach; and price analysis (cost plus fixed fee) to verify that the overall price offered is fair and reasonable.

If the proposed cost is considered to be unrealistic, the Offeror’s proposed cost will be adjusted upward or downward to reflect more realistic costs. Therefore, the evaluated cost, including fee, will be used in making a selection decision. Unrealistic cost proposals may result in a re-evaluation and concurrent rescoring of technical proposals. Such re-evaluation based on cost or realistic cost analysis could negatively impact the technical rating and overall rating of the proposal.

M.4 DETERMINATION OF THE COMPETITIVE RANGE

The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines them to be necessary. If a competitive range is established, the Offerors with whom negotiations will be conducted will be determined by the Contracting Officer pursuant to FAR 15.306(c).

If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

Determination of the competitive range, if any, will be based on a review of technical and cost proposals for this solicitation.

M.5 SOURCE SELECTION

The overall evaluation methodology set forth above will be used as a guide in determining which proposal(s) offer the best value to the Government. In accordance with FAR 52.215-1, and as set forth in Section L of this solicitation, award will be made by the Contracting Officer to the responsible offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government after evaluation in accordance with all factors in this solicitation.

This procurement utilizes the tradeoff process set forth in FAR 15.101-1. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price factors. If the Contracting Officer determines that competing technical proposals are essentially equal, cost/price factors may become the determining factor in source selection. Further, the Contracting Officer may award to a higher priced Offeror if a determination is made that the higher technical merit of the Offeror merits the additional cost/price.

END OF SECTION M