Atch-7 AtchFY26 Section M_EVAL CRITERIA-Draft.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION CRITERIA

1) BASIS FOR AWARD

a) Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is determined the most beneficial to the Government based on the best value tradeoff process, permitting the Government to tradeoff among price and non-price factors and allowing the Government to award to other than the lowest priced proposal.

b) Technical/Risk Approach (Factor 2) is more important than Past Performance (Factor 1).

All non-priced factors, when combined, are approximately equal to price.

c) To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for Factor 2 – Technical/Risk Approach, and a confidence assessment at or above “Neutral” must be achieved in Factor 1 - Past Performance.

d) A comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the RFP will be conducted, and in turn, the Government will compare proposals to one another.

The Government will award a contract to the responsible Offeror whose technical submittal and price proposals containing the combination of those criteria described in this document offering the best value to the Government.

2) EVALUATION APPROACH

a) FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE

i) The Government will evaluate the Offeror's record of performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the RFP. Projects submitted where the Offeror performed as a Prime may be evaluated more favorably.

Offeror’s that submit more projects (up to a maximum of five (5)) demonstrating the offeror’s recent and relevant experience may be evaluated more favorably.

ii) The past performance factor considers each offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance that meet the contract requirements. There are three (3) sub-factors to the past performance evaluation:

(1) RECENCY: The Government will first determine whether the submitted project is recent. Recent means a project completed, or substantially completed (50% or more), within the last five (5) years from the solicitation issuance date. Percentage complete is defined as the total amount of work completed on the project.

Submitted projects that are not recent will not be evaluated. Projects that demonstrate 100% complete may be evaluated more favorably.

(2) RELEVANCY: Next, the Government will determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort acquired through this source selection.

In assessing relevancy, the Government will consider the similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. The ratings include Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, and Not Relevant in accordance with Table 1 below.

(a) The overall project portfolio will be evaluated to determine how many of the preferred key scope characteristics as listed under Factor 1 submission requirements were met in the Contractor’s proposal. Detailed narrative of actions Offerors did to ensure past successes in the listed criteria will be considered in the evaluation.

Table 1 - Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method Rating Definition

Very Relevant (VR) Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant (R) Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

(SR)

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant (NR) Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(3) QUALITY ASSESSMENT: The third sub-factor assesses the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, Past Performance Information along with associated interviews (if needed), and CPARS form the support and basis for this assessment. The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information.

(a) The Government will evaluate the Offeror's past performance and experience using the sources available to it including, but not limited to, the example projects identified by the Offeror and submitted on the PPQs or CPARS and any additional information received from references and other CPARS.

iii) Based on the Offeror's overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance, the Offeror will be assigned one of the ratings in table 2 below.

Table 2 - Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence

Table 2 - Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method Rating Definition assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has low expectations that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

iv) If no recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record and experience is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned this factor will be assigned a rating of “Neutral Confidence”, however, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) may give more favor to a proposal with satisfactory or better past performance than to one with a neutral rating.

b) FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL/RISK APPROACH

i) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror addresses the list of items as outlined in Factor 2 submission requirements and demonstrates an understanding of the technical/risk approach required by the PWS.

(1) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed comprehensive technical approach to ensure that each PO of the PWS Table 1: Performance Table and other applicable agreements such as regulatory agreements (FFA), decision documents, and project workplans are achieved or exceeded.

(2) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) to ensure that the timing and sequence of activities are feasible, Government and Regulatory review periods are incorporated, and decision points for risk mitigation and/or contingency strategies are clearly identified.

(3) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s risk assessment to determine if risks are identified and that all potential downstream impacts or cascading risks, which might arise from identified risks, are accounted for. See Table 5.

(4) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s risk classification and rationale to determine if risks are accurately classified and cost/schedule/performance impacts are accurately quantified.

(5) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s risk mitigation approach to determine if it will eliminate or reduce identified risks to an acceptable level.

ii) Technical/Risk Rating. The combined technical/risk rating evaluates the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of the offeror’s proposal in conjunction with the risk in determining how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical/Risk requirements.

(1) In evaluating the Offeror’s proposal, the Government will document in the contract file:

(a) Positive or negative qualities in the proposal meeting the definition of significant strength, strength, weakness, significant weakness, and deficiency.

(b) Associated risks of the proposal meeting the definition of low, moderate, high, and unacceptable.

(2) The following descriptions in Table 3 will be used in making the determinations.

Table 3 – Strength/Weakness and Risk Levels Level Description

Strength/ Weakness

Significant Strength

Significant Strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Strength Strength is an aspect of an offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Weakness Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness

Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See

FAR 15.001.

Deficiency

Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

Risk

Low

Proposal may contain weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close

Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

(3) Following the identification of strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in the proposal, an adjectival rating will be assigned for this factor. A description of the technical/risk adjectival ratings is included in table 4 below.

c) FACTOR 3: PRICE

i) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s total evaluated price (TEP) for completeness, reasonableness, and unbalanced pricing on individual Contract Line- Item Numbers (CLIN) or Sub-CLINs. The TEP consists of all the Offeror's proposed sub-CLINs, regardless of year in which they may be exercised. A proposal is

Table 4 – Combined Technical/Risk Adjectival Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

Proposal is unawardable.

complete when all price data, as outlined in the RFP has been submitted in the proper format (provided). A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

ii) The Government will evaluate whether Contractor has proposed in accordance with the Contract Line Item (CLIN)/Sub-CLIN structure. The offeror shall not “stretch” by including zero-dollar Sub-CLINs. This may constitute unbalanced pricing and be determined to present an unacceptable risk to the AF. For example, the Performance Period (PP) for a site is Site Closeout (SC) in seven (7) years. The proposal includes zero-dollar Sub-CLINs for Long Term Management (LTM) activities for years six (6) and seven (7).

iii) Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

iv) The total price shall be inclusive of all options.

v) The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404- 1(b)(2), in order to ensure a fair and reasonable price.

Examples of such techniques include, but are not limited to the following:

(1) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation. Normally, adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price (see 15.403- 1(c)(1)).

(2) Comparison of proposed prices to historical prices paid, whether by the Government or other than the Government, for the same or similar items. This method may be used for commercial items including those “of a type” or requiring minor modifications.

(a) The prior price must be a valid basis for comparison. If there has been a significant time lapse between the last acquisition and the present one, if the terms and conditions of the acquisition are significantly different, or if the reasonableness of the prior price is uncertain, then the prior price may not be a valid basis for comparison.

(b) The prior price must be adjusted to account for materially differing terms and conditions, quantities and market and economic factors. For similar items, the contracting officer must also adjust the prior price to account for material differences between the similar item and the item being procured.

(c) Expert technical advice should be obtained when analyzing similar items, or commercial items that are “of a type” or requiring minor modifications, to ascertain the magnitude of changes required and to assist in pricing the required changes.

(d) Per DFARS Case 2020-D008 and section 803 of the FY 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, historical prices paid by the Government cannot properly comprise the only factor when determining prices fair and reasonable. If additional information is required to determine proposed prices fair and reasonable, contractors are required to make a good faith effort to comply with the Government’s reasonable requests to furnish data other than certified cost or pricing data.

(3) Use of parametric estimating methods/application of rough yardsticks (such as dollars per pound or per horsepower, or other units) to highlight significant inconsistencies that warrant additional pricing inquiry.

(4) Comparison with competitive published price lists, published market prices of commodities, similar indexes, and discount or rebate arrangements.

(5) Comparison of proposed prices with independent Government cost estimates.

(6) Comparison of proposed prices with prices obtained through market research for the same or similar items.

(7) Analysis of data other than certified cost or pricing data (as defined at 2.101) provided by the Offeror.

vi) The first two techniques at 15.404-1(b)(2) are the preferred techniques. However, if the Contracting Officer determines that information on competitive proposed prices or previous contract prices is not available or is insufficient to determine that the price is fair and reasonable, the Contracting Officer may use any of the remaining techniques as appropriate to the circumstances applicable to the acquisition.

vii) The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing as defined in FAR 15.404-1(g).

(1) Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line-items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques.

The greatest risks associated with unbalanced pricing occur when --

(a) Startup work, mobilization, first articles, or first article testing are separate line-items;

(b) Base quantities and option quantities are separate line items; or

(c) The evaluated price is the aggregate of estimated quantities to be ordered under separate line items of an indefinite-delivery contract.

(2) All offers with separately priced line items or subline items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced. If cost or price analysis techniques indicate that an offer is unbalanced, the contracting officer shall --

(a) Consider the risks to the Government associated with the unbalanced pricing in determining the competitive range and in making the source selection decision; and

(b) Consider whether award of the contract will result in paying unreasonably high prices for contract performance.

(3) An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3) DISCUSSIONS

a) It is the intent of the Government to award a contract without discussions. However, the

Government reserves the right to conduct discussions with Offerors, if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Offerors shall submit sufficient information and, in the format, specified in the proposal preparation instructions to permit a meaningful assessment of proposals. Communications and/or exchanges conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the government reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision. 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 IAW FAR 52.215-1.

b) 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. If the Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.