Att I - Sec M Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

Attachment I Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 – EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

This is a competitive best value acquisition utilizing the tradeoff process without technical offers in accordance with FAR Part 12 and FAR Part 15 as appropriate, and the evaluation process and criteria set forth in this RFP.

The Government will award a contract resulting from the RFP to the acceptable, responsible offeror whose proposal, conforming to this RFP, offers the best value to the Government. The evaluation factors are: Factor 1:

Price and Factor 2: Past Performance with Past Performance being approximately equal to Price. Evaluation criteria are the same for all competing offerors. Factor 3, Small Business Participation Plan, will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis.

Offerors shall assure that proposals are submitted in accordance with the instructions provided in clause FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Competitive Acquisitions and Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 of this RFP. By submission of an offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer’s proposal being unawardable. While the Government intends to award a contract without discussions, discussions or negotiations may be conducted.

Offerors may be required to participate in telephone discussions or in face-to-face, oral discussions at the Eglin Source Selection Facility, 210 West D Avenue, Building 373, Eglin AFB, FL. Offerors are cautioned to follow the detailed instructions fully and carefully, as the Government reserves the right to make an award based on initial offers received, without discussion of such offers. The Offeror's initial proposal should reflect their best effort. The Government intends to award one contract but reserves the right to award none.

Offerors shall offer prices for all items. Any offer that fails to cite a price for each item, or fails to make an entry, may be rejected as nonconforming to this RFP. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the RFP terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Failure to meet a requirement risks rejection. The resultant contract will utilize Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) CLINS. Only FFP offers will be evaluated for all items. An offer using a sliding price scale, or subject to escalation based on any contingency for FFP designated items, will not be accepted. The only exception to this is the normal escalation for each year. Only one contract will be awarded for this requirement.

1.1 Evaluation Factors

Factor 1: Price Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Small Business Participation Plan

1.2 Process (Stepped Approach)

a. Step 1 - Proposals will be ranked from lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP) to highest TEP. Then, the Government will evaluate the two (2) lowest proposals under Factor 1 Price.

b. Step 2 - If either or both of the two lowest proposals are found to be incomplete or unreasonable under Factor 1 then the Government will review the next lowest TEP proposal until two lowest proposals are found to be complete, reasonable and have balanced pricing under Factor 1 OR all offers have been evaluated.

c. Step 3 - Then, the two lowest TEP proposals with complete, reasonable and balanced pricing for

Factor 1 will be evaluated for past performance confidence under Factor 2 and Small Business Participation Plan acceptability under Factor 3. If the lowest TEP proposal with complete, reasonable and balanced pricing for Factor 1 is found to have a Substantial Confidence performance assessment under Factor 2 and an Acceptable rating for Factor 3 (if large business), this proposal is deemed to represent the best value for the Government, and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offerors.

d. Step 4 - If the lowest TEP with complete, reasonable and balanced pricing for Factor 1 does not receive a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment rating under Factor 2 and an Acceptable rating under Factor 3 (if large business), then the second lowest TEP proposal with complete, reasonable and balanced pricing for Factor 1 will be evaluated under Factor 2 and Small Business Participation Plan acceptability under Factor 3. If the second lowest TEP with complete, reasonable and balanced pricing for Factor 1 proposal does not receive a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment rating under Factor 2 and an Acceptable rating under Factor 3 (if large business), then this evaluation process will continue until an offeror is found to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment rating under Factor 2 and is found to be Acceptable for Factor 3 OR all offers have been evaluated.

e. Step 5 - The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision by determining if the best value to the Government is to pay a higher price for higher past performance confidence assessment rating. The Government reserves the following rights: to award a contract to the lowest price offeror who has Substantial Confidence Rating, to award to higher priced offeror who has Substantial Confidence Rating; award a contract to the lowest price offeror who has at least a Satisfactory Confidence Rating or award a contract to the lowest price offeror who has a Neutral Confidence Rating.

f. Step 6 - If the Government chooses to enter into discussions at any point during the evaluation process, discussions will be conducted with those Offerors whose proposals are in the competitive range. After discussions are closed and Final Proposal Revisions received, the process will begin again at Step 1.

1.3 Factors and Subfactors

1.3 Factor 1: Price

1.4.1 Price Evaluation. The TEP for each offer will be established as follows: Price will be reviewed and evaluated based on the amounts shown within Attachment A Pricing Discount Coefficient, Attachment B Market Basket and Attachment 3 Supplemental Priced Items (SPI) List. The TEP will be the sum of Attachment B Market Basket and Attachment 3 Supplemental Priced Items (SPI) List. The price evaluation will document reasonableness and balanced pricing of the proposed TEP.

1.4.2 The Offeror's Price Volume of the proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable. Normally, price reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. For additional information, see FAR 31.201-3. Additionally, although adequate price competition is expected, if only one offer is received in response to this solicitation, the responding offeror may be required to provide data other than certified cost or pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.403-3.

Once the Contracting Officer has determined that adequate price competition exists within this source selection, price fairness and reasonableness will be evaluated, at a minimum, based on the comparison of the offeror’s overall TEP with all other competitive offerors’ overall TEPs received in response to the solicitation.

1.5 Factor 2: Past Performance

1.5.1 Using the information provided in Volume II, Past Performance Information and Past Performance References (Attachment C) and completed Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment D) and other available information, the Contracting Officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on all offerors based on (1) the past and present efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other Government, commercial and other sources.

1.5.2 Scope

The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the Offeror’s likelihood of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the Offeror’s demonstrated past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence or No Confidence as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table M3.

1.5.3 The Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this Request for Proposal.

1.5.4 Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L.

Offeror’s may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Clarification conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

1.5.5 Recency Assessment

Recent past performance is defined as ongoing contracts with a performance history, and contracts completed or near completion within three (3) years from the issue date of this solicitation. Past Performance Information submitted that does not meet the definition of recent will not be evaluated.

1.5.6 Relevancy Assessment

In determining relevancy for individual past performance submissions, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, joint venture partner, or major subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information forms and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will determine relevancy when assessing recent contracts According to Table M2 below:

Table M2 – Relevancy Ratings Adjectival Rating

Description Scope Magnitude Complexities

Very Relevant

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

Provide ALL necessary labor, supervision, equipment, supplies, transportation and materials to support a Contractor Operated Civil Engineer Supply Store or equivalent as described in the attached associated requirement documents.

Greater than $5,000,000 annually

Included a combination of experience and expertise in the areas of: Inventory Processing, Supply Sourcing, Procurement of Materials, Delivery Processes, Store Processes, Hazardous Material, Reports, Record Keeping, and Contract Responsibilities.

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

Provide MOST necessary labor, supervision, equipment, supplies, transportation and materials to support a Contractor Operated Civil Engineer Supply Store or equivalent as described in the attached associated requirement documents.

Between $1,000,000 to $4,999,999 annually

Included a combination of experience and expertise in the areas of: Inventory Processing, Supply Sourcing, Procurement of Materials, Delivery Processes, Store Processes, Hazardous Material, Reports, Record Keeping, and Contract Responsibilities.

Somewhat Relevant

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

Provide SOME necessary labor, supervision, equipment, supplies, transportation and materials to support a Contractor Operated Civil Engineer Supply Store or equivalent as described in

Between $500,000 to $999,999 annually

Included a combination of experience and expertise in the areas of: Inventory Processing, Supply Sourcing, Procurement of Materials, Delivery Processes, Store Processes, Hazardous Material, Reports, Record Keeping, and Contract Responsibilities.

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Provide NO necessary labor, supervision, equipment, supplies, transportation and materials to support a Contractor Operated Civil Engineer Supply Store or equivalent as described in

Less than $500,000 annually

No scope or experience

1.5.7 Performance Confidence Assessment

The Government reserves the right to seek information on higher priced offerors if none of the lower priced offerors receive a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment. The purpose of the Past Performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in this RFP, based on the offeror’s demonstrated Present and Past Performance. The Government will conduct a performance confidence assessment based upon Past Performance of the offerors as it relates to the probability of successfully performing the solicitation requirements. This evaluation will include the offeror’s record of (i) conforming to the Performance Work Statement, (ii) management of the project, (iii) reasonable and cooperative behavior and performance and commitment to customer satisfaction, and (iv) quality control. This assessment represents the Government evaluation team’s judgment of the probability of an offeror successfully accomplishing the proposed effort, based upon the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. The rating may be determined initially, without the need of discussions. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, or No Confidence as defined in Table M3.

1.6 Factor 3 – Small Business Participation

The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine if the offeror has demonstrated a clear commitment to meeting all the Small Business Participation goals herein. Small Business Participation Plans (from large and small businesses) will be evaluated based on the following:

a. The extent to which Small Business firms are specifically identified in the proposal;

b. The extent of commitment to Small Business firms (for example, enforceable commitments are to be weighed more heavily than non-enforceable ones);

c. Identification of the complexity and variety of the work small business firms are to perform;

d. Past performance of the offerors in complying with requirement of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and 52.219-9 Alternate II Small Business Subcontracting Plan, large businesses only; and;

e. The extent of participation of SB firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition and the extent of which the proposal meets or exceeds small business participation goals for this acquisition.

1.6.1 Rating Scheme. After evaluating the Offeror's Small Business Participation Plan, the SSET will assign an overall factor rating to reflect the degree to which the proposal meets or does not meet the minimum requirements outlined above. Factor 3 will receive one of the ratings described below:

Acceptable. Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives. Offeror is a large or small business. SB firm(s) are specifically identified in the proposal;

demonstrates a commitment to SB firm(s); identifies the complexity and variety of work small businesses are to perform; and demonstrates commitment to meet the 32.25% SB Participation goal. For

TABLE M3 - PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Adjectival 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 be able to successfully perform the required effort.

large business prime - displays past performance in complying with FAR 52.219-8 and FAR 52.219-9 Alternate II.

Unacceptable. Proposal does not meet the small business objectives. Offeror is a large or small business, and does not demonstrate commitment to meet the 32.25% SB Participation goal or does not identify SBs in the proposal; or does not demonstrate a commitment to use SB firms; or does not identify the work small businesses are to perform; or for large business prime - does not display past performance in complying with FAR 52.219-8 and FAR 52.219-9 Alternate II (does not explain or provide justification for failure or show substantive effort, example ISRs/SSRs).

1.6.2 SUBCONTRACTING PLAN (Applicable Only to Large Businesses) The Subcontracting Plan will not be rated by the Source Selection Team (SSET), but rather reviewed by the Small Business Advisor and the Contracting Officer for acceptability of criteria listed in Section L. The assessment will consider if the plan adequately responds to each of the required elements of the FAR 52.219-9 Alternate II, and if the commitments listed in the Offeror's Subcontracting Plan are comparable to the commitments addressed in the Offeror's Small Business Participation Plan.

2.0 SOLICITATIONS REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale to any exceptions taken.

2.1 Number of Contracts to be awarded

The Government intends to award one contract; however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all, depending on the quality of the proposals, the prices submitted and the availability of funds.

2.2 Correction Potential of Proposals

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal. Clarification conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions.

2.3 Discussions with Offerors

The Government reserves the right to award a contract based only on initial proposals without establishing a competitive range and conducting discussions. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to conduct discussions, the Government will establish a competitive range and conduct discussions with all Offerors included in the competitive range. Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices and the Final Proposal Revision will be considered in making the source selection decision.

2.4 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers

The Government may reject any proposal that is assessed to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in price, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program. Proposals that are unrealistic in terms of price may be rejected at any time during the evaluation process.

3.0 RESPONSIBILITY

A Contractor Responsibility Determination will be made IAW FAR Subpart 9.1 for the prospective awardee.