Att 6 AIT-7_Section M 26AUG2024.pdf

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

This section is intended to explain the rationale by which proposals resulting from this solicitation will be evaluated.

M.1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, Contracting by Negotiation. The United States Government (USG) will select up to three proposal(s) with the lowest evaluated price(s) that are determined Acceptable in the Technical factor. In order to be eligible for award, Offerors must be deemed responsible IAW FAR Part 9.1 and their System for Award Management (SAM) registrations must be active and up to date.

The USG intends to make award without discussions. However, the USG may enter negotiations if the Contracting Officer determines entering negotiations is in the USG’s best interest. Therefore, Offeror’s are cautioned their initial proposal should contain their best terms. The USG reserves the right to limit the competitive range for the purposes of efficiency and to award without discussions. Please note, the USG may decide to make no award(s) if Offeror(s) are found Unacceptable. The USG reserves the right to contact an Offeror for clarification without opening discussions. The USG intends to make up to three contract awards without opening discussions, but may elect to open discussions at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. The USG reserves the right to conduct discussions to permit Offerors to revise their proposal. The USG reserves the right to award less than three or no contracts.

Failure to include (propose) all items listed in Attachment 0002, AIT-7 Price Matrix, may be cause for rejection of the offer.

M.2. EVALUATION FACTORS:

The USG will evaluate on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis the factors described below:

FACTOR 1: Technical FACTOR 2: Price

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY:

First, the USG will compile an internal spreadsheet listing each Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP). “TEP” is defined as the sum of each Ordering Period Total (OpT). “OpT” is defined as the sum, of one unit each, of all Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) for a given ordering period. In the example shown in Table 1 below, the TEP is $600.00 ($120.00 x 5 Ordering Periods). The OpT is $120.00. The OpT, in the example below, is made up of 120 CLINs at $1.00/each. Please note, in the example below, not all 120 CLINs are listed.

Example:

CLIN/SLIN Product Description Unit of Issue

Option Period

Option Period

Option Period

Option Period

Option Period

SLIN 0001

AA

Hand Held Barcode Terminal A (HHT- A) Large Display, Integrated Imager, and Full Alphanumeric Keypad Capability

EA $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00

SLIN 0001

BB

HHT-B warranty upgrade to add 2 year (total 5 year warranty)

EA $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00

SLIN 0001

CC

HHT-C Holster and Shoulder Strap

EA $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00

SLIN 0001

DD

HHT-D

Rechargeable Battery (1EA)

EA $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00

SLIN 0001

EE

HHT-D Multiple (2) Battery Charger

EA $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00

SLIN XX01

FF

HHT-F or HHT-G Rechargeable Battery (1EA)

EA $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00

SLIN

XX01GA

HAND-HELD

TERMINAL-G

(HHT-G) SMALL

DISPLAY,

INTEGRATED

IMAGER, FULL

ALPHANUMERIC

KEYPAD

CAPABILITY, AND

NI CERTIFIED

EA $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00

SLIN

XX01HA

HAND-HELD

TERMINAL-H

(HHT-H) SMALL

DISPLAY,

INTEGRATED

IMAGER,

QWERTY OR

NUMERIC OR

ALPHANUMERIC

KEYPAD, AND NI

CERTIFIED

EA $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00

SLIN

XX01JA

HAND-HELD

TERMINAL-J

(HHT-J) SMALL

DISPLAY,

INTEGRATED

EXTENDED READ

RANGE IMAGER,

QWERTY OR

NUMERIC OR

ALPHANUMERIC

KEYPAD, AND NI

CERTIFIED

EA $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00

SLIN XX03

AD

Imager for PC Input

- IUID Direct Part Markings

EA $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00

SLIN XX05

AE

4" x 6 " Label and Ribbon Set for Portable/Wearable BC Label Printer (6

EA $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00

SLIN 0005

BE

Resin Ribbon for 4" Width Labels for Stationary BC Label Printer

EA $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00

SLIN 0007

AC

Desktop Verifier for Labels

EA $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00

SLIN 0013

AA

Bar Code Label Design and Printing Software

CLINS

0016AA

pRFID Fixed Reader w/antennas

EA $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00

SLIN0016DA pRFID Vehicle

Mount Fixed Reader w/antennas

EA $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00

SLIN0016FA pRFID Smart Table EA $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 SLIN0016HA Handheld

Terminal-Passive (HHT) (w/CAC Reader)

EA $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00

SLIN0018AA pRFID Shipping

Tag - 4" x 2" (2,000 labels /roll)

EA $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00

SLIN0020AA pRFID Thermal

Transfer Printer;

EA $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00

SLIN 0015

AB

Expedited delivery

OCONUS

Ordering Period Total (OpT)

$120.00 $120.00 $120.00 $120.00 $120.00

Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

$600.00

Table 1: TEP and OpT Example

Second, the USG will review the spreadsheet (mentioned in step 1) and determine which three Offeror’s have the lowest TEP.

Third, the USG will then redact the company (Offeror’s) names from their Attachment 0002 submission (copy that does not include prices). The USG will then send the redacted Attachment 0002 (copy that does not contain prices) to the USG technical evaluation team for technical evaluation.

Fourth, once technical evaluations are completed, the USG will note in the spreadsheet (mentioned in step 1) the three lowest Offeror’s technical rating (acceptable/unacceptable).

Depending on how many of these offers are found technically acceptable determines the next step.

The USG intends to select the three lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposals for award and not conduct any further proposal evaluations. This means if a sufficient number of Offeror(s) as determined by the USG are technically acceptable, and meet all other requirements of this solicitation, award may be made to those Offerors without discussions. If a sufficient number of Offeror(s) as determined by the USG are not technically acceptable, then evaluations may continue and the Source Selection Authority may:

Continue evaluating additional offers and award to the next lowest price Technically acceptable Offeror(s); or

Enter into discussions and establish a competitive range. The Contracting Officer may determine the number of most highly rated proposals exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted. The competitive range may be limited for purposes of efficiency.

Under the scenarios described above, it is possible that higher priced offers will not be evaluated for Technical Acceptability. It is possible that higher priced offers may receive an award if lower priced offers are not technically acceptable.

Note, the Technical Acceptability of an Offeror does not ensure inclusion in a competitive range, if one is set. This means that if a proposal is priced higher than the lowest three, it may not be evaluated.

Fifth, if the USG finds all three lowest priced offers technically acceptable, the USG will then evaluate these three Offerors for a fair and reasonable price in accordance with M.4.

If the Government determines that any of the three lowest-priced proposal are not technically acceptable, the USG will continue evaluating the technically acceptable Offeror(s) for a fair and reasonable price in accordiance with M.4.

For the Offeror(s) found technically unacceptable, the USG will evaluate the next lowest-priced proposal for technical acceptability.

The USG intends to repeat this process, i.e., evaluate the next lowest-priced offer, until three technically acceptable offers are found. Please note, this is the USG’s intention, but the USG still reserves the right to award less than three contracts or no contracts.

M.3 TECHNICAL

Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding requirements. The Technical factor will be evaluated based upon an assessment of the Offeror’s proposed hardware for each respective CLIN found in Attachment 0002, AIT-7 Price Matrix. Each proposal shall include all technical specification sheets for each item (CLIN) listed in Attachment 0002. The USG will evaluate the submitted technical specification sheets to see if the proposed items meet the PWS requirements. Note, all proposed items MUST meet the PWS requirements for security and must comply with the terms and conditions (provisions and clauses) of the solicitation/contract. If an proposed item is made up of multiple parts (think a kit) the Offeror SHALL include a high level (think what are the major items that make up that kit) Bill of Material (BOM) with their proposal submission.

Technical Acceptability - The USG technical evaluation team shall evaluate the three lowest-priced proposals Attachment 0002 and technical specification sheet submissions. The evaluation team will compare these submissions to the requirements outlined in Attachment 0001 PWS. The USG technical evaluation team will assign an overall ratings to the technical submission, Attachment 0002, of either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable.” In order to be determined Technically Acceptable, an Offeror MUST propose ALL Line Items listed in Attachment 0002. Table 2 outlines how proposals are evaluated.

Rating Description Acceptable All items proposed in Attachment

0002 meets the minimum requirements of the PWS.

Unacceptable All items proposed in Attachment 0002 do not meets the minimum requirements of the PWS.

Table 2 Ratings

Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The Offeror is reminded that the Government intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions. However, the Government may hold discussions if necessary.

FAR Clause 52.219-4 (Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business (HUBZone) Concerns) is included in full text.

Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially, or as a result of clarifications or discussions, will be considered for award.

M.4. PRICE

The pricing criteria used for evaluation is TEP. However, in order for a proposal’s price to be determined acceptable, the TEP must also be (1) Reasonable and (2) Balanced.

Reasonableness – The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained, or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using analysis of the provided information, additional information IAW FAR 15.4 may be required to support the proposed price.

Balance – Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more price elements such as divisions are significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR 15.404-1. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether there is unbalanced pricing within the proposals. IAW FAR 15.404-1, offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

TEP - TEP will be calculated using the information populated by the Offeror in Attachment 0002. As outlined above, the TEP will be calculated by summing each OpT.

Each OpT is the sum of all Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) for a given ordering period for one unit each.

M.5 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS (Proposal Volume 3)

M.4.1 Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, as detailed in the AIT-7 PWS, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.