Basis_for_Award_&_Evaluation_Criteria_-_Evaluation__Commercial_Items.pdf

NIEHS2016 062

FAR CLAUSE 52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

(a) Basis for Award. The selection of a source for award will be conducted utilizing Simplified Acquisition

Procedures as delineated in FAR Part 13. The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to award with discussions. Quoter is encouraged to present their best quote and prices in their initial quote submission. The major evaluation factors for this solicitation include Factor I, Technical Capability (which encompasses three (3) sub factors), Factor II, Past Performance, and Factor III, Price. Although technical factors are of paramount consideration in the award of the contract, cost/price is also important to the overall contract award decision. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. The Government will utilize a tradeoff approach and reserves the right to make award to the Quoter whose submission provides the best overall value to the Government.

Quoters are advised that award(s) will be made to that Quoter whose submission provides the combination of features with the best or greatest overall value to the Government. The Government is more concerned with obtaining performance capability superiority rather than lowest overall cost. However, the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall cost to the Government to achieve only slightly superior performance. Overall cost to the Government may become the ultimate factor for award of a contract as submissions become more equal based on other factors.

The evaluation will be based on the demonstrated capabilities of the prospective Contractors in relation to the needs of the project as set forth in the RFQ. The merits of each submission will be evaluated carefully. Each submission must document the feasibility of successful implementation of requirements of the RFQ. Quoters must submit information sufficient to evaluate their submissions based on the detailed criteria below.

1. FACTOR I – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY: The Government will evaluate the technical submission to ensure it is acceptable or higher. Each submission will be rated utilizing the ratings defined below (price excluded). Technical Factor evaluation provides an assessment of the Quoter’s capability to satisfy the

Government’s minimum requirements. A Quoter must receive an adjectival rating of acceptable or above for each sub factor. Failure to meet the criteria will render the response not eligible for award.

(a) Sub factor 1 – Technical approach: The Quoter’s submission shall be evaluated to ensure it demonstrates:

• An arrangement that results in the greatest efficiencies with the maximum service to the

Government.

• Soundness of objectives, methods, schedule, and tracking system.

• Adequacy of tank transition plan. Soundness of the plan and the process for eliminating an interruption of gas services to the campus during transition and throughout performance of the contract.

(b) Sub factor 2 –Technical Experience: The Quoter’s submission shall be evaluated to ensure it

• Feasibility of the teaming arrangement which demonstrates ability to function successfully and cohesively.

• Suitability of personnel needed to successfully execute the requirements of the SOW based on qualifications, education levels, years of experience, knowledge and expertise, and certifications of specified labor categories.

• Technical experience that demonstrates a clear understanding and familiarity with the work needed to successfully execute the requirements of the SOW.

• Properly executed, signed contractor teaming arrangements, and/or binding commitment(s)

(partnerships, joint ventures, prime contractor/ subcontractor(s)), if applicable.

(c) Sub factor 3 – Quality Control Plan: The Quoter’s submission shall be evaluated to ensure it

• Effective and efficient control system and inspection techniques for program compliance;

• Effective and efficient methodologies for identifying deficiencies in the quality of service performed before the level of service became unacceptable

• Effective and efficient internal process for documenting, maintaining records and reporting quality related problems for performance improvement.

• Concise and clear telemetry system quality control plan.

• Sound procedures to be used in assuring accurate measurements and readings.

The Government will evaluate the Technical submission using the following adjectival rating:

Rating Definition

Exceptional

Greatly exceeds all minimum requirements of the criteria; has a high probability of success; contains no weaknesses or deficiencies. The technical submission possesses numerous (5 or more) significant strengths (that are not offset by flaws)

Good

Exceeds all the minimum requirements of the criteria; has an above average probability of success; contains no significant weaknesses and only minor, correctable weaknesses exist. The technical submission possesses one or more significant strengths (that are not offset by flaws)

Acceptable Meets all the minimum requirements of the criteria; has an average probability of success; no significant weaknesses and any deficiencies can be readily corrected.

Marginal

Fails to meet one or more of the minimum requirements of the criteria; low probability of success; significant weaknesses and/or significant number of deficiencies exist.

Unacceptable Fails to meet any of the minimum requirements of the criteria; submission needs major revisions; very low probability of success.

NOTE: A Quoter must receive an adjectival rating of acceptable or above for each sub factor. Failure to meet the criteria will render the response not eligible for award. The Government will not make an award to any Quoter with an unacceptable rating or a deficiency in ANY factor or sub factor.

2. FACTOR II - PAST PERFORMANCE: The Past Performance Factor evaluation will assess the relevance and breadth of the Quoter’s experience and the quality of the Quoter’s past performance. The

Government is seeking to determine whether the Quoter has experience that will enhance its technical capability to perform and whether the Quoter consistently delivers quality services in a timely and cost effective manner. In evaluating past performance, HHS/NIH will only take into consideration the relevant experience and past performance assessments from the Quoter 's customers. However, the HHS/NIH reserves the right to use other relevant past performance information it obtains through other sources including other agency databases and information contained in trade literature.

• Relevance of Experience: The Quoter’s experience will be evaluated on the degree of relevance to the requirement on the basis of similarity in size, scope, complexity, technical difficulty, contract type, and period of performance. Only recent experience will be evaluated. Evaluations may include interviews with previous clients of the prime contractor and subcontractors and may include interviews with previous clients of proposed personnel. The Quoter’s experience with and knowledge of issues and problems of large organizations will be evaluated. If some of the Quoter’s experience is relevant and the rest is not, only the relevant experience will be evaluated for purposes of past performance. If no experience is relevant or the experience that is relevant cannot be evaluated due to a reference’s failure to respond, a rating of neutral will be assigned for past performance as defined in the next table.

• Past Performance Assessments: The Quoter’s past performance will be evaluated on the basis of information contained in the Quoter’s submission and the information that the Government obtains through other means. The past performance evaluation will assess the Quoter’s record of providing high quality services of a similar nature in a manner that ensures maximum accuracy, throughput, cost effectiveness and overall client satisfaction.

The Government will evaluate the Past Performance Factor using the following adjectival ratings:

Rating Definition

Neutral No past performance available for evaluation. Quoter has asserted that it has no directly related or similar relevant past performance experience. Submission receives no merit or demerit for this factor.

Outstanding

Based on the Quoter’s record of past performance, no issues, concerns, or risks are associated with receiving timely services and contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Quoter’s experiences indicate that the Quoter is capable of exceeding the requirements of the delivery order. The Quoter has demonstrated significant experience with and knowledge of the issues and problems of large organizations.

Good

The Quoter’s record of past performance indicates there is very little risk associated with receiving quality products, timely services and full contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Quoter’s experience indicate the Quoter will meet or exceed the requirements of the delivery order. The Quoter has demonstrated experience with and knowledge of the issues and problems of large organizations.

Acceptable

The Quoter’s record of past performance indicates that there is some potential risk associated with receiving quality products, timely services, and contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Quoter’s experience indicate the Quoter may have some problems during performance of the delivery order. The Quoter has demonstrated limited experience with and knowledge of the issues and problems of large organizations.

Unsatisfactory

The Quoter’s record of past performance indicates it will be unable to perform successfully on the task order

3. FACTOR III - PRICE: Price will not be assigned an adjectival rating. The Government will evaluate the total price of the STO to determine if the Quoters price is fair and reasonable utilizing price analysis techniques in accordance with the guidelines in FAR Part 13 (a delivery order award will not be issued for the STO). For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 13.106.

(b) Options. As part of the price fair and reasonable determination, the Government will evaluate its option to extend services (see FAR Clause 52.217-8) by using six (6) months of the last years ceiling and the unit prices for the last year quoted in the Contract Pricing List for the option period. The Quoter shall not submit a price for the potential six (6) month extension of services period. The Government may choose to exercise the Extension of Services at the end of the performance period, utilizing the rates of that performance period.

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

(End of provision)