Att. 5 - Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

(a) The Government intends to make a single award as a result of this solicitation. Award will be made to the responsible offeror passing all Pass/Fail requirements of the solicitation and whose proposal contains the combination of those factors offering the best overall value to the Government. The best overall value to the Government will be determined by comparing the difference in value of technical (non-cost/price) features of proposals with the difference in the cost/price to the Government.

(b) The Government intends to award a contract on the basis of initial proposals without conducting discussions (except for clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)), as permitted by FAR 15.306(a)(3) and FAR 52.215-1. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined to be necessary by the Contracting Officer or Source Selection Authority.

2.0 PASS/FAIL EVALUATION

Offerors will be evaluated based on a Pass/Fail rating on the requirements listed below. Offerors must receive a Pass rating under each Pass/Fail Requirement to be eligible for award. A fail may result in no further consideration for award. The Pass/Fail rating criteria is as follows:

2.1 Plan for Obtaining Personnel Clearances

The Government will evaluate the plan for obtaining personnel clearances for compliance with the DD254 and the ability of the Offeror to perform the full requirement by the time full operational tempo is required by the above transition requirement.

2.2 Facility Clearance

The Government will evaluate whether the offeror’s facility clearance meets the level specified in the DD Form 254 using Government sources of information for all CAGE codes provided.

2.3 Certifications

The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror provides proof of all required certifications for the personnel listed by providing a LENEL Certification ID Number and Full Name of all proposed employees.

2.4 Small Business Participation

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's small business participation in accordance with the small business objective or its rationale for its proposed deviation as set forth in Section L.

3.0 NON-COST/PRICE FACTORS

The Government will evaluate offers and assign one of the adjectival ratings indicated in paragraph (6.0) of this provision for each of the following non-cost factors.

3.1. TECHNICAL CAPABILITY (Factor 1)

3.1.1. Technical Approach (Subfactor A)

The Government will evaluate proposals to assess each offeror’s approach to and understanding of the scope and nature of the tasks and subtasks in the SOW. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding and adherence to the most recent version of all Applicable Documents in SOW Section 3.0.

3.1.2 Sample Tasks (Subfactor B)

The Government will evaluate the responses to each Sample Task to assess the Offeror’s understanding of the issue(s), requirement(s), required labor mix, and the approach to perform each Sample Task. The Government will evaluate the labor categories, any applicable level (I, II, III, IV, V, etc.), and an explanation as to how the labor category will be utilized; any special or unique training or certifications; types of experience or subject matter expertise; and the number of hours per labor category per task to complete each Sample Task. The Government will evaluate the identification of any deliverables that would be produced to document the results for each Sample Task. The Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s identified Key Person or Key Personnel, if applicable, and the Offeror’s plan to effectively incorporate applicable ADs and GFI into performance of each Sample Task.

3.1.3. Personnel – STR Description (Subfactor C)

(a) Senior Technical Representative (STR). The Government will evaluate the proposed STR’s qualifications to manage tasks, including their authority, ability to independently commit company resources to performance under this contract and their line of communication to senior company management. The Government will also evaluate the proposed STR’s previous experience managing similar efforts. If the STR is not proposed as part of the level of effort performing on-site at NUWCDIVNPT, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s explanation of how the STR can effectively and efficiently manage day-to-day tasks from a remote location

(b) Key Personnel. The Government will consider the qualifications as stated in the resume submitted for each Key Person. The Government will evaluate the merits of Key Personnel as indicated in the resume against the SOW tasks to which the individual(s) is/are assigned in the proposal and the typical qualifications of the selected labor category, including level (i.e. I, II, III, IV), in terms of education and experience (see:

http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/WarfareCenters/NUWCNewport/Partnerships/CommercialC ontracts/LaborCategories.aspx). For Key Personnel, including the STR where they are proposed to perform tasking not directly attributable to the STR duties, the Government will evaluate the merits of the individual as indicated in the resume against the SOW/PWS tasks to which the individual is assigned in the proposal and the typical qualifications of the selected labor category, including level (i.e. I, II, III, IV), in terms of education and experience (see http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/WarfareCenters/NUWCNewport/Partnerships/CommercialC ontracts/LaborCategories.aspx). The Government will also evaluate the collective qualifications and expertise of the proposed Key Personnel against the Key Personnel requirements identified in Section L, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, paragraph 3.1.3)(b). A proposal that does not include Key Personnel meeting the requirements identified in Section L, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, paragraph 3.1.3)(b) may be rated Unacceptable. A proposal demonstrating more complete coverage of the Key Personnel requirements identified in Section L, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, paragraph 3.1.3)(b) may be determined to have greater value. If any proposed Key Personnel are not currently employees of the offeror or proposed subcontractor offeror, or who are proposed to permanently relocate, the Government will verify that signed Letters of Intent are provided.

3.2 PAST PERFORMANCE (Factor 2)

The past performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance. The Government may consider past performance information contained in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) and the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). The Government may use other information such as the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or other data available from Government sources to evaluate an Offeror’s past performance. The Government reserves the right to limit or expand the number of references it decides to contact, and to contact references other than those provided by the offeror. The Government may also contact all or some of each offeror’s customers to obtain past performance information. The Government reserves the right to limit or expand the number of references it decides to contact, and contact references other than those provided by the offeror. 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 will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

4.0 COST/PRICE (Factor 3)

(i) The offeror’s proposed price will be evaluated for reasonableness. The Government will use price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(a)(2).

(ii) Total Evaluated Price:

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s Total Proposed Price. The Total Proposed Price includes the sum of the Total Price of All CLINs submitted under the Section B - CLIN Schedule Pricing (Attachment 2) and the Total Price of LENEL System Hardware and Materials Price

Listing (Attachment 3). However, the Total Award Value of the resulting contract will be based solely on the Section B - CLIN Schedule Pricing (Attachment 2) since the Government has specified the value of CLIN 0005 in the Section B - CLIN Schedule Pricing (Attachment 2).

(iii) Section B - CLIN Schedule Pricing (Attachment 2):

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed prices (Unit Price, Extended Price, and Total Price of All CLINs) stated in its submission of the Section B - CLIN Schedule Pricing, Attachment 2.

(iv) LENEL System Hardware and Materials Price Listing, (Attachment 3):

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed prices (Unit Price, Extended Price, and Total Price of Hardware/Material Items Listed) stated in its submission of the LENEL System Hardware and Materials Price Listing, (Attachment 3). This price list will be used for evaluation purposes under the Total Evaluated Price. After contract award this price list will be used by the Government to place hardware/material orders at the delivery order level under CLIN 0005. The total proposed price of this list will not be considered part of the total award value of the resulting contract since the Government has specified the value of CLIN 0005 in the Section B - CLIN Schedule Pricing (Attachment 2).

5.0 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

The following table indicates all factors and subfactors that will be considered in awarding this requirement.

FACTORS SUBFACTORS

Technical Capability – Factor 1 Subfactor A – Technical Approach Subfactor B – Sample Tasks

Subfactor C – STR/Key Personnel Resumes

Past Performance – Factor 2 None Cost/Price – Factor 3 None

The relative importance of factors is as follows: The subfactors of Technical Factor 1 are listed in descending order of importance. Technical Capability - Factor 1 and Past Performance – Factor 2 are essentially equal. All evaluation factors other than Cost/Price – Factor 3, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price. As competing proposals approach Technical Capability/Past Performance equality, Cost/Price will increase in importance. In addition, Cost/Price will increase in importance when it is so significantly high as to diminish the value of technical superiority to the Government.

6.0 ADJECTIVAL RATINGS

(a) The Government will perform an evaluation of the non-cost/price evaluation factors and subfactors based on the offeror’s proposal. This evaluation focuses on strengths and weaknesses of the offeror’s proposal, resulting in the assignment of an adjectival rating for each factor and subfactor. Cost/Price and Pass/Fail Requirements in Section L Instructions to Offerors will not be assigned an adjectival rating.

(b) Technical Capability Factor Ratings: Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

The following combined technical/risk ratings include consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one 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.

Definitions:

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

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

Deficiency is defined as 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 is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Strength is an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit, or exceeds specified performance, or capability requirements, in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

(c) Past Performance Evaluation

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror's probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

There are three (3) aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

(A) The first is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information.

(B) The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. The criteria to establish what prior performance is recent and relevant shall be unique to each source selection and shall be stated in the solicitation. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of an offeror’s history of contract (or subcontract) performance that would provide the most context and give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will successfully satisfy the current requirement.

Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming.

There are four (4) levels of relevancy as shown below. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Rating Description

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

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

Somewhat Relevant

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

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

(C) The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance (see FAR 15.304(c)(2)). The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

Performance Confidence Assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings shown below (reference FAR 15.305(2) for information on assigning a neutral confidence rating).

Rating Description

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 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 a low expectation 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 successfully perform the required effort.