D.2 Instructions to Offerors and Eval Factors.pdf

75N98027Q00065 – Attachment 2

FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Products and Commercial Services (NOV 2021)

In accordance with FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Nov 2021), 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.

Technical factors together shall be considered significantly more important than price. Technical and past performance, when combined, are significantly more important than price. The following evaluation criteria will be used by the Government when reviewing the proposal. The criteria below are listed in descending order of relative importance.

Offeror's past performance information will be evaluated subsequent to the technical evaluation.

However, this evaluation will not be conducted on any offeror whose proposal is determined to be technically unacceptable.

The government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions if the Contracting Officer determines that the initial prices are fair and reasonable and that discussions are not necessary.

Factor 1: Technical Approach

The merit of each proposal will be evaluated carefully, based on responsiveness to the Statement of Work (“SOW”) and feasibility of the technical approach. Offerors should provide sufficient and specific plans and explanations on how they plan to successfully perform the tasks under the SOW. Proposals that simply parrot back the SOW, without providing sufficient detail and explanation, will not be considered to meet the requirement.

Subfactor 1: Technical Capability

Proposals will be evaluated to determine technical capability. This includes:

1. The ability to provide the resources detailed in the SOW in a timely, accurate, and cost-effective fashion,

2. How the offeror plans to address potential challenges and problems that might be encountered in meeting the overall objectives in performance.

Subfactor 2: Staffing and Management

Proposals will be evaluated to determine whether they demonstrate the availability of experienced, qualified staff and a feasible plan for organizing and managing the tasks in the SOW.

Subfactor 3: Experience and Capability on Similar Tasks

Proposals will be evaluated to determine whether they demonstrate their ability to successfully perform the requirements based on experience and capability on similar tasks.

The following ratings will be used in the evaluation of the Technical proposal:

Excellent – The proposal has exceptional merit and reflects an excellent approach which will clearly result in the superior attainment of all requirements and objectives. This clearly achievable approach includes several advantageous characteristics of substance, and very few disadvantages, which can be expected to result in outstanding performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very low as the proposal provides solutions which are unquestionably feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered very low risk in that they are exceptionally clear and precise, fully supported, and demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Very Low

Good – The proposal demonstrates a sound approach which is expected to meet all requirements and objectives. This sound approach includes advantageous characteristics of substance, and few relatively minor disadvantages, which collectively can be expected to result in satisfactory performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is low as the proposal contains solutions which are considered feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered to reflect low risk in that they are clear and precise, supported, and demonstrate an understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Low

Acceptable – The proposal demonstrates an approach which is capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. The approach includes both advantageous and disadvantageous characteristics of substance, where the advantages are not outweighed by the disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages are likely to result in acceptable performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate, as the proposal solutions are generally feasible and practical. These solutions may also be considered to reflect moderate risk in that they may be somewhat clear and precise, partially supported, and/or demonstrate a general understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Neutral

Marginal – The proposal demonstrates an approach which may not be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. The approach has disadvantages of substance and advantages, which if they exist, are outweighed by the disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages present a low or questionable likelihood of resulting in satisfactory performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is high as the proposal contains solutions which may not be feasible and practical. These solutions may also be considered to reflect high risk in that they lack clarity and precision, are generally unsupported, and/or do not demonstrate a complete understanding of the requirements. Risk Level:

High

Unacceptable – The proposal demonstrates an approach which, based on a very high risk, will very likely not be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. This approach has several disadvantages of substance, and advantages which, if they exist, are outweighed by disadvantages.

Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages are unlikely to result in satisfactory performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very high as the proposal contains solutions which are not feasible and practical. The solutions may also be considered to reflect very high risk in that they lack any clarity or precision. Risk Level: Very High

Factor 2: Past Performance

Past performance will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror has expertise and experience in providing these resources and has consistently demonstrated a commitment to customer satisfaction and timely delivery of high-quality products and services.

The evaluation will be based on information obtained from references provided by Offerors, other relevant past performance information obtained from other sources known to the government (e.g., CPARS), and any information supplied by Offeror concerning problems encountered on the identified contracts and corrective action taken.

The lack of a relevant performance record may result in an unknown performance risk assessment, which will neither be used to the advantage nor disadvantage of the offeror.

The following rating method shall be used in the evaluation of past performance information:

Excellent – Based on the offeror's performance record, no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Sources of information are consistently firm in stating that the offeror's performance was superior and that they would unhesitatingly do business with the offeror again.

Good – Based on the offeror's performance record, little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Sources of information state that the offeror's performance was good, better than average, etc., and that they would do business with the offeror again.

None – No past performance history identifiable.

Marginal – Based on the offeror's performance record, some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Sources of information make unfavorable reports about the offeror's performance and express concern about doing business with the offeror again.

Poor – Based on the offeror's performance record, serious doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Sources of information consistently stated that the offeror's performance was entirely unsatisfactory and that they would not do business with the offeror again.

Factor 3: Price Evaluation

The offeror’s business proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness. 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 cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.