Attachment 0004 - Section M.pdf

B. BASIS FOR AWARD (Section M)

A. EVALUATION OF QUOTES. This acquisition will utilize a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Selection Approach authorized at FAR 15.101-2. The Offeror shall submit an active SAM registration. If a quote lacks the appropriate SAM registration, the quote will not be further evaluated and the quote will be eliminated from any further consideration. After SAM registration is verified, three factors will be evaluated:

(I) Technical, (II) Past Performance, and (III) Price

Upon completing the evaluation of the three factors, award will be made to the offeror whose quote is the lowest priced technically acceptable.

The offeror must be found acceptable in both the technical and past performance factors to be eligible for award. The Government expects to award a single Firm Fixed Priced, Indefinite Quantity Indefinite Delivery contract that will have individual task orders issued over the course of 5 ordering periods as follows:

Ordering Period 1: 07 December 2025 through 06 December 2026 Ordering Period 2: 07 December 2026 through 06 December 2027 Ordering Period 3: 07 December 2027 through 06 December 2028 Ordering Period 4: 07 December 2028 through 06 December 2029 Ordering Period 5: 07 December 2029 through 06 December 2030

The Government reserves the right to: limit the Competitive Range for the purposes of efficiency; award without discussions; and make no award should no Offeror prove to submit an acceptable offer based on the criteria set forth in the solicitation.

CORRECTION POTENTIAL OF PROPOSALS. The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any proposal uncertainty or deficiency. Uncertainty is any aspect of a non-cost/price factor quote for which the intent of the Offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the quote indicating that there may have been an error, omission or mistake).

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. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror's quote not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the Competitive Range.

B. NUMBER OF CONTRACT AWARDS. The Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of the quotes, prices submitted, and the availability of funds.

The Government intends to make award of a single IDIQ contract and will have individual task orders issued over the course of five ordering periods.

C. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND AWARD DECISION.

Proposals will be rated only on their content. Assumptions, preconceived ideas, and personal knowledge or opinions not supported by material provided in the quote will not be considered or used as a basis for evaluation. Each quote will be evaluated against the solicitation criteria included below. The Government intends to make one award without discussions.

I. Offeror must be registered in SAM and have an active UEI number and CAGE code before quote submission.

Registration will be verified via SAM.GOV website of approved contractors. In the event and Offeror fails to provide or possess the appropriate registration documentation/information at the time the quote is submitted, the quote will not be further evaluated. If the Offeror submits an active SAM registration, the following evaluation factor ratings will be applied to the quotes:

II. Technical Capability Factor. The Technical Quote will be evaluated and an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating will be assigned to all Subfactors. An Unacceptable rating for any Subfactor will result in an overall Unacceptable rating for the Technical Capability Factor. The evaluation of the Technical Capability Factor Quote will consist of an evaluation of the following Subfactors:

a. Saudi Arabian Business License and VAT Certificate and CCHI and SAMA Certification

• Proposal submission contains legible copies of the offeror's business license and VAT certificate for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA).

• Proposal submission includes proof that the contractor is Council of Cooperative Health Insurance (CCHI) and Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency (SAMA) certified in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to provide Life and Health Insurance Services.

b. Technical Plan. When evaluating the Offeror's Technical Plan, the Government will determine if:

• The Technical Plan demonstrates a sound technical approach and a thorough understanding of the necessary methods and techniques required to meet performance standards and customer requirements in accordance with the PWS.

• The plan is detailed and comprehensive making clear references to requirements outlined in the PWS.

• The quote demonstrates an ability to provide all the resources (personnel, equipment, supplies, transportation, tools, material, supervision, insurance and other items and services) necessary to perform the PWS.

• The plan addresses how established standards, specifications, and regulations referenced in the PWS will be met.

• The plan displays a thorough understanding of applicable (if any) Saudi Arabian regulations as well as US Department of Defense (DoD) and Army statutes and regulations, that demonstrates the Offeror's ability to perform the requirements in accordance with the PWS.

• The plan conveys an understanding of how to perform the mission within the environment for which these operations will occur.

• The plan describes an effective approach for ensuring clear communication between the contractor and Government, measures customer satisfaction, and includes a customer feedback program.

• The Technical Plan describes appropriate and defined timelines and milestones for sequence of work, assumptions, and constraints that demonstrate a clear understanding of the PWS.

Rating Definition Acceptable Offeror meets all requirements listed in paragraphs a and b.

Unacceptable Offeror fails to meet one or more requirements listed in paragraphs a and b.

c. Past Performance Factor. The Government will ensure that at least three references were included with the Offeror's quote submission. Past Performance information will be evaluated, and an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating will be assigned.

Sources of Past Performance information for Evaluation are as follows:

i. Past Performance information may be provided by the Offeror, as solicited.

ii. Past Performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government to include, but not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency, etc.

Table 2. The following ratings and associated definitions will be used to rate the Past Performance of Offerors

Rating Definition Acceptable Based on the offeror's performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror's performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

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

Note: In the case of an offeror with insufficient references from a USG organization, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)).

Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, "unknown" shall be considered "acceptable."

d. Price Factor. The Offeror's proposed price will be evaluated as follows:

Proposal analysis techniques, IAW FAR 15.404-1 will be used to determine price reasonableness. The price factor will be evaluated, but not adjectively rated. FAR requires that contracts be awarded at prices that are fair and reasonable. The Contracting Officer is responsible for the determination of price reasonableness. The Government will evaluate offers based on the Total Evaluated Price from the Price Matrix, and any other price related factors required by the solicitation. The Government intends on evaluating an offeror’s TEP using Price Analysis to determine price reasonableness. Additional analysis techniques may be used as determined necessary by the Contracting Officer. These methods of evaluation may include the use of information/input from sources such as (but not limited to) other U.S.

Government agencies and personnel.

The Government intends to evaluate price reasonableness IAW FAR 15.404-l(b), relying primarily upon competition. The Government expects adequate competition, and a comparison will be made of Total Evaluated Prices received in response to the solicitation.

The U.S. Government will evaluate Offeror’s proposals based on prices proposed in the Price Matrix (Attachment 0002).

CLINs X001 through X003 (CLIN X004 is automatically calculated and CLIN X005 is UNPRICED) will be summed by the period of performance column.

The Total Evaluated Price will be the sum of all Ordering Periods. The total price for the Base Period and each Option Period, respectively, is the sum of all CLINs for each ordering period.

The Government anticipates adequate price competition; therefore, other than certified cost or pricing data is not required with an Offeror's proposal. The Government reserves the right, however, to request other than certified cost or pricing data in the event adequate price competition does not exist to determine the reasonableness of an offer (See FAR 15.403-3). If only one offer is received, the Government may request additional information, to include other than certified cost or pricing data.

Unbalanced Pricing- As part of the evaluation, an Offeror’s proposal may be reviewed to identify any significant unbalanced pricing. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), i.e., Unbalanced Pricing, a proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.