Enclosure_3.pdf

ENCLOSURE 3 RFQ No. 80GSFC18Q0008

EVALUATION CRITERIA

The Government will award a multiple award BPA resulting from this Request for Quotation to a maximum of three (3) responsible Offeror(s) whose quotations’ conforming to this request will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate quotes: Technical, Price, and Past Performance.

The Price factor is less important than the combined importance of the Technical and Past Performance factors. As individual factors, the Price factor is less important than the Technical factor but more important than the Past Performance factor. Offerors are advised that a quotation meeting the objectives and requirements with the lowest price may not be selected if award to a higher-priced Offeror is determined to be most advantageous to the Government.

Offerors quotations will be evaluated as follows:

(a) TECHNICAL FACTOR

The Government will evaluate quotations by classifying findings as strengths, weaknesses, significant strengths, significant weaknesses, or deficiencies using the following:

Weakness –a flaw in the quotation that increases the risk of unsuccessful BPA performance

Significant Weakness –a quotation flaw that appreciable increases the risk of unsuccessful BPA performance

Deficiency –a material failure of a quotation to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a quotation that increases the risk of unsuccessful BPA performance to an unacceptable level

Strength –a quotation area that enhances the potential for successful performance or contributes toward exceeding the BPA requirements in a manner that provides additional value to the Government.

Significant Strength –a quotation area that greatly enhances the potential for successful performance or contributes significantly toward exceeding the BPA requirements in a manner that provides additional value to the Government.

The Offeror’s overall technical factor will be evaluated using the adjectival ratings below to determine how well the Offeror understands the technical requirements as expressed in the Offeror’s Technical

Volume response and approach to performing the specific requirements listed in the SOW and

Representative Task Orders. One of the following adjectival ratings will be assigned:

ADJECTIVAL

RATING

DEFINITIONS

Excellent A comprehensive and thorough quotation of exceptional merit with one or more significant strengths. No deficiency or significant weakness exists.

Very Good

A quotation having no deficiency and which demonstrates over-all competence. One or more significant strengths have been found, and strengths outbalance any weaknesses that exist.

Good A quotation having no deficiency and which shows a reasonably sound response. There may be strengths or weaknesses, or both. As a whole, ADJECTIVAL

RATING

DEFINITIONS

weaknesses not off-set by strengths do not significantly detract from the

Offeror’s response.

Fair A quotation having no deficiency and which has one or more weaknesses.

Weaknesses outbalance any strengths.

Poor

A quotation that has one or more deficiencies or significant weaknesses that demonstrate a lack of overall competence or would require a major quotation revision to correct.

The Offerors quotations will be evaluated as follows:

The Government will evaluate for effectiveness and efficiency the Offeror’s proposed technical approach to meeting the following critical requirements of the Statement of Work (Enclosure 1, Attachment A):

The Offeror shall provide a description of the process for reading the data from the tapes. Specifically, address any processes for delivery with anomalous issues, such as, problems of old media, including, but not limited to, sticky tapes and dry-rotted plastic hubs, including capability to bake the tapes to remove excess moisture.

The Government will evaluate for completeness for processing the transcribed data format, specifically addressing the conversion of 7-track tape formats into 8-bit byte data formats.

The Government will evaluate for completeness for processing the transcribed data format, specifically addressing the conversion of 9-bit track tape formats into 8-bit byte data formats.

The Government will evaluate the thoroughness of the process of reading the reel media at reduced speeds to reduce stress and friction.

The Government will evaluate the thoroughness of the process of handling media tracking issues, such as those resulting from degraded signal strength or alignment issues.

The Government will evaluate the understanding of the process for providing a description of the .csv

(comma separated value) inventory file of the individual file marks recovered from each tape to clearly identify the beginning and end of individual files on the media, number of records per file, number of bytes per record, and end of tape marker.

The Government will evaluate for understanding of the process for providing a description of the final disposal of the tapes which at a minimum, shall include removal of all labels and rendering the media unreadable.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall comprehensive technical understanding of these critical requirements and clarity in identifying the inherent problems associated with the objectives of this procurement.

In evaluation of the RTO, the Government will consider the following:

For the RTO, the Government will evaluate: (a) the thoroughness and merit of the Offeror’s proposed technical and management approach to successfully accomplish the task, track progress, and demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the scope and objectives associated with the requirements; (b) the reasonableness and completeness of the proposed detailed schedule; (c) the thoroughness of the Offeror’s identified risk factors; (d) the effectiveness of the Offeror’s proposed approach to managing and/or mitigating identified risks; (e) the appropriateness of the Offeror’s staffing plan, skill mix, and hours proposed to accomplish the RTO in an effective and efficient manner; and (f) the reasonableness of the basis for any assumptions made.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s procedures for determining the applicability of subcontracting and approach for managing subcontracts and potential performance problems for effectiveness and efficiency.

The Government will evaluate the organizational efficiency of the Offeror’s proposed process for responding to task plan requests in a timely, comprehensive, and thorough manner. The Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s overall plan for pricing, staffing, tracking and managing tasks orders for effectiveness and completeness.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach and capability to effectively and efficiently resolve problems, organize workflow, and manage the overall effort successfully. The

Offeror’s ability to provide and retain a technically adept workforce will be evaluated for effectiveness.

The Government will also evaluate the type of personnel currently available for adequacy and appropriate skill mix and levels of expertise. In addition, the Government will also evaluate the reasonableness and effectiveness of the Offeror’s approach to obtain additional personnel, if needed.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed risk management techniques for comprehensiveness in identifying potential risks and effectiveness in developing mitigation strategies to eliminate or reduce risks and ensure task order requirements are met. The Government will evaluate the

Offeror’s overall ability to continually manage risk, fully assess and understand the level of risks associated with this BPA, and efficiently develop and implement workarounds and mitigation approaches.

(b) PRICE FACTOR

A price analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1). Price analysis is described at

FAR 15.404-1(b). This analysis is done to ensure that a “fair and reasonable” price is paid by the

Government. However, the analysis is not intended to be protective of the Offeror.

The Representative Task Order response pricing will be assessed to determine the reasonableness of the proposed response, including the price per unit, special handling due to degradation, volume discount, and total price. The media type, price per unit and volume discount proposed in Attachment B, PRICING

MATRIX, will also be assessed for reasonableness.

The total of the proposed price for the Representative Task Order will be presented to the Selecting

Official. All price analysis will be performed at the Representative Task Order level; there is no separate price analysis of the BPA. This factor is used to determine the reasonableness of the proposed prices to the Government, should the Offeror be selected for the award.

(End of text)

(c) PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

GSFC 52.215-330 Past Performance Evaluation Factor. (JUN 2014)

An offeror’s past performance will be evaluated based on the evaluation criteria in this provision. All past performance references must meet the “recent” and minimum average annual cost/fee expenditures criteria provided below for both prime contractor references and significant subcontractor references in order to be evaluated.

For purposes of past performance, the term “Offeror” refers to a prime contractor and its significant subcontractors. Accordingly, the past performance of significant(s) subcontractors shall also be evaluated and attributed to the Offeror. The past performance of a significant subcontractor will be compared to the work proposed to be performed by that subcontractor, and weighted accordingly in assigning the overall past performance adjectival rating to the Offeror. The past performance of the prime contractor will be weighted more heavily than any significant subcontractor or combination of significant subcontractors in the overall past performance evaluation.

A “recent” contract is a contract that is ongoing or completed less than 5 years prior to the issuance of this

RFQ. Contracts completed more than 5 years prior to issuance of this RFQ will not be considered recent and will not be considered or evaluated.

A “relevant” contract depends on the size and content of the contract with respect to this acquisition.

For a prime contractor’s contract reference(s) to be considered at least minimally “relevant”, it must meet/exceed an average annual cost/fee incurred of at least $12,500.

A proposed significant subcontractor for this procurement is defined as any proposed subcontractor that is estimated to meet/exceed an average annual cost/fee of $5,000. Note, the definition of significant subcontractor for the past performance evaluation may be different than for the cost evaluation.

For a significant subcontractor’s contract reference(s) to be considered at least minimally “relevant”, it must meet/exceed an average annual cost/fee incurred of at least 25% of that portion of this procurement that the subcontractor is proposed (or estimated) to perform.

If the contract is deemed recent and meets the above minimum average annual cost/fee expenditures criteria, the Government will then determine the degree of relevance - i.e., level of pertinence - of the contract based on size and content. Content is more important than size in the evaluation of relevance.

The term “content” means the type and complexity of services, work, or supplies, in comparison to the requirements of this solicitation. The Government may consider past quantities and periods of performance in evaluating overall relevance.

The performance evaluation will be based primarily on customer satisfaction and/or contract data in meeting technical, schedule, cost, and management requirements. Additional performance factors may include contract administration, occupational health, safety, security, subcontracting plan goals and small disadvantaged business participation targets, if applicable, and other contract requirements.

The Government may review and consider past performance information on other contracts that it is aware of or that are made available from other sources and inquiries with previous customers. These contracts (if any) must meet the above “recent” and minimum average annual cost/fee expenditures criteria to be evaluated.

As part of the past performance evaluation, the Government may attribute the experience or past performance of a parent or affiliated or predecessor company (including Joint Venture prime partner companies and/or a parent or affiliated company that is being otherwise proposed as a subcontractor on this effort) to the proposed prime contractor and/or significant subcontractor(s) where the proposal demonstrates that the resources of the parent or affiliate or predecessor company will affect the performance of the proposed prime contractor and/or significant subcontractor(s). The Government will take into consideration whether the resources of the parent or affiliate or predecessor company (its workforce, management, facilities or other resources) will be provided or relied upon for contract performance such that the parent or affiliate will have meaningful involvement in contract performance.

These contracts (if any) must meet the above “recent” and minimum average annual cost/fee expenditures criteria to be evaluated.

An Offeror shall not be rated favorably or unfavorably if the offeror does not have a record of “recent” and “relevant” past performance or if a record of past performance is unavailable. In such cases the offeror will receive a “Neutral” rating. However, an offeror with favorable, recent, and relevant past performance that meets the minimum average annual cost/fee expenditures indicated above may be considered more favorably than an offeror with no relevant past performance information.

The Government will consider an Offeror’s explanation of any problems encountered on any identified contracts, and any corrective actions taken by the offeror.

The overall confidence rating assigned to an Offeror’s Past Performance (see below) will reflect a subjective evaluation of the information contained in the oral presentation, if applicable; written narrative;

past performance evaluation input provided through customer questionnaires; and other references, if any, that the Government may contact for additional past performance information.

Past Performance Ratings – The level of confidence ratings set forth below will be used to evaluate the

Past Performance factor for each Offeror.

Each of the adjective ratings below has a "performance" component and a "relevance" component as discussed above. As used in the ratings below, the term “pertinent” is equivalent to the term “relevant.”

The following adjectival rating guidelines will be used when subjectively assessing both components.

Very High Level of Confidence

The Offeor’s relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition; indicating exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner; very minor

(if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a very high level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

High Level of Confidence

The Offeror’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition; demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements with contract requirements accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part with only minor problems with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a high level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Moderate Level of Confidence

The Offeror’s relevant past performance is pertinent to this acquisition, and it demonstrates effective performance; fully responsive to contract requirements; reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a moderate level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Low Level of Confidence

The Offeror’s relevant past performance is at least somewhat pertinent to this acquisition, and it meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards; adequate results; reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a low level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the

Offeror’s existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements.

Very Low Level of Confidence

The Offeror’s relevant past performance does not meet minimum acceptable standards in one or more areas; remedial action required in one or more areas; problems in one or more areas which adversely affect overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a very low level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral

In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance [see FAR 15.305(a) (2) (ii) and (iv)].

(End of provision)

(d) 52.217-5 Evaluation of Options. (JUL 1990)

Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government’s best interests, the Government will evaluate the rates associated with each option period. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(End of provision)