ATTACHMENT_7_Evaluationcriteria.pdf

ATTACHMENT 7

ADDENDUM TO PROVISION FAR 52.212-2

EVALUATION CRITERIA

EVALUATION PROCEDURES AND BASIS OF AWARD

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This section defines the evaluation criteria the Government will consider in evaluating the Offeror's capabilities and proposals submitted for the Blanchard Springs Cavern Radio/Tracking Communication System acquisition.

The Government will conduct an integrated evaluation of all parts of the Offeror's proposal, which is composed of past performance information, a written Mission Capability volume, a Contract Documentation volume, and a Price volume. Responses to any additional requests for information from the Government will also be evaluated. The specific criteria show the scope of evaluation to be performed on proposals submitted in response to this RFP. The instructions to Offerors define the proposal elements and data required from each

Offeror for this evaluation.

2.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

2.1 Best-Value Source Selection

The Government seeks to award one Firm Fixed Priced contract to the Offeror who gives the USDA Forest

Service the Best Value. This acquisition will utilize the Full Trade-off source selection procedure to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. Proposals will each receive a Mission Capability rating, a Past Performance Confidence Assessment, and an evaluated price. Each offerors Mission Capability rating will be based upon an integrated assessment of the Technical, Management, and transition sub-factors. A contract may be awarded to the entity who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representation, certifications, and all other information required by the Instructions to Offerors of the solicitation). Proposals will be judged based on the evaluation factors that represent the best value to the

Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced entity, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the mission capability superiority and/or overall business approach and/or superior past performance of the higher priced entity outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the

Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

2.2 Compliance with Terms And Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements in order to be eligible for award. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award. Any exceptions to the solicitation's terms and conditions must be fully explained and justified, and may render an offer unacceptable.

2.3 Rejection of Unrealistic Proposals

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated and determined to be unrealistic in achieving the objectives and/or tasks of the Blanchard Springs Caverns Radio/Tracking Communication System, contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in cost when compared to Government estimates. This reflects an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the requirements.

2.4 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. The judgment of such correction potential is within the sole discretion of the Government. The Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range if an aspect of the proposal does not meet the requirements and is not considered technically acceptable, or have the potential for correction.

2.5 Discussions

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. NOTE: The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. However, discussions may be held if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary (see FAR provision 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors, Competitive Acquisition).

3.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA

Your response to contract documentation (Attachment 2 through Attachment 4) shall be evaluated for completeness and in accordance with the instructions for submission. Failure to complete the required contract documentation, or deviation from the instructions cited in the request for proposal, may result in you no longer being considered for award.

3.1 Factors

The Government will evaluate proposals based upon the following factors:

Factor 1 - Mission Capability

Sub-Factor 1 - Technical

Sub-Factor 2 - Management

Sub-Factor 3 - Transition

Factor 2 - Past Performance

Factor 3 - Cost/Price

3.2 Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors. For the Non-Price Factors the Mission Capability Factor is

More Important than the Past Performance Factor. Within the Mission Capability Factor, the Sub-factors are in descending order of importance. Non-Price Factors (Mission Capability and Past Performance) when combined are Substantially More Important than Price in the award decision. However, as Non-Price factors become more equal, Price will become more important in the best value trade-off analysis. The Government may elect to award to other than the lowest priced offeror, or other than the offeror with the highest rated non-price factors. In either case a tradeoff will be conducted. The Government reserves such right of flexibility in conducting the evaluation as necessary to assure an award with the contractor providing the best value to the

Government.

3.3 508 Evaluation Factors.

3.3.1 Responses to this RFP will only be considered for award after it has been determined that the proposal adequately addresses the requirements for Section 508. Only proposals which contain adequate information to document their responsiveness to the Section 508 requirements (i.e. accessibility capabilities and past performance, a completed GPAT or VPAT or equivalent) will be eligible for any additional consideration.

3.3.2. If the deliverable proposed in response to this RFP includes features and functions in addition to those identified as requirements, these features and functions also need to conform to relevant Section 508 technical provisions, functional performance criteria, and information, documentation and support. The accessibility of these additional features and functions should be described in the completed GPAT, VPAT or equivalent supporting information.

3.4 Mission Capability Evaluation Procedures

3.4.1 Factor Assessment: The Government will evaluate the Offeror's Mission Capability Factor, to include the following sub-factors: Technical, Management, and Transition processes as they pertain to SaaS for

Reporting Incidents of Work Related Accident requirements. Mission Capability will receive one overarching rating as denoted in table 1 below. Sub-factors will receive a rating as denoted in table 1 below and will be rolled up to the Mission Capability Rating The Mission Capability color rating depicts how well the offeror's proposal meets the sub-factor requirements (Technical, Management & Transition) of the Mission Capability

Factor.

3.5

Past Performance Evaluation Procedures

3.5.1 Under the Past Performance Factor, the Performance Confidence Assessment (see table 2 below) represents the evaluation of an Offeror's past work records to assess the Government's confidence in the

Offeror's probability of successfully performing as proposed. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet user's needs, including performance, cost, and schedule. The Past Performance evaluation is accomplished by reviewing the Offeror's relevant present and recent past performance, focusing on and targeting performance that is relevant to the

Mission Capability factor, the Price criteria, and the other requirements of the solicitation.

TABLE 1 - MISSION CAPABILITY EVALUATION RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Exceptional Exceeds technical expectations. Reflects an innovative approach and/or superior understanding of the requirement in a way beneficial to the Government; proposal must have one or more strengths and no deficiencies and weaknesses to receive this rating

Green Acceptable Meets technical expectations. Reflects sound approach and/or satisfactory understanding of the requirement; proposal must have no deficiencies and weaknesses but may have one or more strengths to receive this rating.

Yellow Marginal Does not clearly meet technical expectations. Reflects an uncertain approach and/or incomplete understanding of the requirement.

Red Unacceptable Fails to meet specified minimum performance or capability requirements; proposal has one or more deficiencies or weaknesses. Proposals with an unacceptable rating are not awardable.

Performance Confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level. One performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned for each offeror. Each offerors past performance will be evaluated for recent, relevancy, and quality of performance.

Recent Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the closing date of this RFP. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Relevancy Assessment: The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained, to include Joint venture partner(s) and significant subcontractor(s). Relevancy will be considered on contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity, placing higher relevance on efforts that provide services directly related to the task areas.

Quality: The Government will look at how well the contractor performed those efforts determined to be relevant.

The following adjectives will be used in assessing Performance Confidence:

3.6

Price Evaluation Procedures

3.6.1 The Offeror's Price Proposal will be assessed for reasonableness, realism, and affordability using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed costs indicate a clear understanding of the solicitation requirements, and reflect a sound approach to satisfying those requirements. If the cost reasonableness/realism assessment indicates the proposed Price is excessively

TABLE 2- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE No performance record is identifiable or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

high or low, the Government may consider the Offeror to have a lack of understanding of the technical requirements and the proposal considered unreasonable and/or unrealistic will be excluded from further consideration for award.

3.6.2 The Government shall determine the total contract value by adding all priced CLINs, to include option

CLINs and the pre-priced Travel CLINs.

3.7 EVALUATION OF 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 an offer is unacceptable if the option prices or are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

3.8 Contract Documentation Evaluation Procedures

The Offeror's contract documentation shall be evaluated for completeness and in accordance with the instructions for submission. Failure to complete the required contract documentation, or deviation from the instructions cited in the request for proposal, may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award.