Attachment 0004 Section M for HSIF Follow-On.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION – SEE FAR 3.104

SECTION M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

ATTACHMENT 0004

M.1. BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made to the LPTA proposal. Proposals will be evaluated for technical acceptability using the non-price Factors (including past performance). In order for an Offeror to be considered for award, the proposal must receive an “Acceptable” rating in every non-price Factor. A proposal receiving a rating of “Unacceptable” in any non-price Factor will not be eligible for award.

The Government will assess the Offeror’s capability of the Government’s requirements on the basis of the Offeror’s proposed Technical and Past Performance. Mere statements of compliance or recitation of the RFP requirements (i.e. “parroting” of the RFP requirements) are not acceptable. The Government will assess capability on an acceptable or unacceptable basis. Trade-offs are not permitted.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offeror’s (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)).

Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

M.2. EVALUATION APPROACH

A. VOLUME I: TECHNICAL

The purpose of the Technical Factor is to assess whether the Offeror’s proposal will satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. Risk will be assessed as an inherent part of the Technical Factor. The Technical Factor are as follows:

1. Standard of Proof: Kitting. Proposal demonstrates a working knowledge of how to perform the task and shows a minimum of three years’ experience in building kits, including assembling, labeling, and verifying kits.

2. Standard of Proof: Integration Services. Proposal demonstrates a working knowledge of how to perform the task and shows a minimum of five years’ experience in preparing and loading computer images on equipment using imaging software and load disks.

3. Standard of Proof: Integration Services. Proposal demonstrates a working knowledge of how to perform the task and shows a minimum of five years’ experience in performing FATs for imaged equipment and reporting the results of those FATs.

4. Standard of Proof: IT Support. Proposal demonstrates a working knowledge of how to perform the task and shows a minimum of five years’ experience troubleshooting, maintaining, and updating Infrastructure on an intranet.

5. Standard of Proof: IT Support. The proposal demonstrates a working knowledge of how to perform the task and shows a minimum of five years’ experience providing Backup and Disaster Recovery Service for an intranet.

In performing the evaluation of the Technical Factor, the following ratings and descriptions will be used:

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

B. VOLUME II: PAST PERFORMANCE

Past performance information is evaluated as a predictor of future contract performance.

The Government will evaluate with the expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the requirements of the HSIF Support RFP based on the Offeror’s demonstrated record of recent and relevant performance.

Recent definition (see Attachment 0003 Section L Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors).

Relevant definition (see Attachment 0003 Section L Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors).

In performing the evaluation of the Past Performance Factor, the following ratings and descriptions will be used:

Adjectival Rating Description

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 without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, 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.”

It is the responsibility of the Offeror to provide complete past performance information and thorough explanations as required in Attachment 0003 Section L Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors. The Government is not obliged to search other volumes for the required information.

C. VOLUME III: PRICE

1. Price will be an evaluated factor; however, it will not be assigned a rating. The FAR requires that contracts be awarded at prices that are fair and reasonable. The Government will evaluate and assess the price proposal to determine price reasonableness. Additional analysis techniques may be used as determined necessary by the PCO. These methods of evaluation may include information/input from sources such as, but not limited to, other Government agencies and personnel.

2. The Government expects adequate price competition; therefore, a comparison will be made of prices received. However, the Government also reserves the right to require submission of data other than certified cost or pricing data adequate to determine the reasonableness of an offer if competition is inadequate for that purpose. The Price Matrix will multiply the Government provided hours by the proposed fully burdened hourly labor rate for each labor category in each of the Performance Periods. The Government will provide the ODC total for each POP and added to the Offerors’ labor totals to come to the Performance Period Total. The Government will then sum each of the Performance Periods to arrive at the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The evaluation of the OPs does not require the Government to exercise the option. The TEP will include the transition price which shall be included in the base period and the two evaluated OPs.

3. Offerors shall completely fill in all yellow highlighted cells within the price matrix and IAW the instructions in Attachment 0003 Section L Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors. Failure to completely fill in all yellow highlighted cells could render the Offeror ineligible for award.

4. Unbalanced Pricing will be evaluated as required by FAR 15.404-1(g)(2). A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

D. VOLUME IV: PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PLAN

The property management plan is an evaluation factor. The Government will review the Offeror’s property management plan to ensure the ability to comply with FAR 52.245-1 and provide for effective control of the Government property accountable to the resultant contract.

To receive consideration for award, an Offeror’s proposal must address all RFP requirements.